Frequently asked questions in these groups deserve a monthly posting
Steve Hayman
>\begin{Hugeflame}
and I agree. Isn't it time for a monthly "Introduction to
comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards" posting, containing
frequently asked questions and answers? I think this has worked well in
some other groups.
For starters, such an article could contain
- examples of what is appropriate for .questions and what
is appropriate for .wizards
- "how to get a recursive directory listing"
- "how to remove a file whose name begins with a dash or whose
names contain odd characters"
- maybe a list of some good Unix books
and so on. Obviously a good starting point would be parts of Gene Spafford's
monthly "Frequently Asked Questions" posting to news.announce.newusers.
Most usenet groups might benefit from having a monthly introductory
posting. If all we need is a volunteer to put together such a document
and post it on a regular basis, I volunteer. I don't claim to have all the
answers myself but I'll be happy to organize and edit an appropriate
monthly posting.
(Please excuse the posting of this particular article to both groups - that
is one thing the monthly posting should recommend agains. Followups
to comp.unix.questions)
Let me know by mail if you have any suggestions for what this
document should contain, and I'll put a preliminary version together
and post it for public comment, if nobody has any objections.
Steve
--
Steve Hayman Workstation Manager Computer Science Department Indiana U.
saha...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (812) 855-6984
Don Libes
>and I agree. Isn't it time for a monthly "Introduction to
>comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards" posting, containing
>frequently asked questions and answers? I think this has worked well in
>some other groups.
I really think this is unnecessary, because there are already many
books on UNIX. I wish beginners would read a book on it first before
wasting net bandwidth. It would answer 99% of these questions.
Indeed, you will find that if you try to write down all these
questions and answers, it will be too voluminous for a posting.
I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I just wrote a book -
"Life With UNIX" - specifically because people were always knocking on
my door asking the very same questions that appear in comp.unix. It
was just reviewed in UNIX World [June 89] and the reviewer spent two
columns just gushing about it. It is noted in the new 4.3BSD book
[Leffler et al] as a good tutorial, though it is much more than that.
For example, there are hundreds of references to other books and
articles for more information about specific topics.
I think that reading this book (or one similar) could avoid the need
of this kind of monthly posting. Maybe the posting could just say to
read a book about UNIX, first?
I wouldn't have posted this, except that I've never seen any mention
of it on the net (and Prentice Hall doesn't spend very much on
advertising, grrr). So as not to seem totally one-sided, I know of a
couple other books that fall in the same class: viz. UNIX Papers
[Waite], Conceptual UNIX [HP, I think], but I think if you compare
them, you'll like "Life With UNIX" much better.
Don Libes li...@cme.nbs.gov ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes
John Cowan
> is appropriate for .wizards
>
I would like to propose a different method of distinguishing between c.u.q
and c.u.w. It is a long-standing complaint that people post easy questions
to c.u.w because they figure, "Nobody will read c.u.q who has any hope of
being able to answer my question -- after all, it flummoxes me dunnit?"
However, as regular readers/posters know, this is not true -- plenty of
wizard types read c.u.q and reply there regularly.
How about this: "Do not post to c.u.w unless YOU are a wizard. Otherwise,
post to c.u.q." There is still considerable subjectivity in this, but
confronted with this demand I suspect people will think twice about posting
the "remove ugly file name" and "find file in any directory" type questions
to c.u.w, while preserving the "There's an obscure bug in my 4.1-derivative
kernel; anybody got adb patches?" where c.u.q people won't have to be
scared off by it.
It should not be the (perceived) DIFFICULTY of the point -- a total novice
may have difficulty listing a directory -- but the TECHNICAL COMPETENCE of
the requester, that controls where a query is posted, IMHO.
--
John Cowan <co...@marob.masa.com> or <co...@magpie.masa.com>
UUCP mailers: ...!uunet!hombre!{marob,magpie}!cowan
Fidonet (last resort): 1:107/711
Aiya elenion ancalima!
Jimmy Aitken
>In article <21...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> saha...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes:
>>and I agree. Isn't it time for a monthly "Introduction to
>>comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards" posting, containing
>>frequently asked questions and answers? I think this has worked well in
>>some other groups.
>
>I really think this is unnecessary, because there are already many
>books on UNIX. I wish beginners would read a book on it first before
>wasting net bandwidth. It would answer 99% of these questions.
>Indeed, you will find that if you try to write down all these
>questions and answers, it will be too voluminous for a posting.
I agree with the intent here, but people just don't read things first.
How many times have you read an article that the manual page answers?
I don't think I could stand another set of "How do I set my prompt to
show the current directory?" or "How can I find out the filename from
the device and inode" type questions. Similarly, in the text
newsgroups, "How do I convert troff to postscript?" seems to rear it's
ugly head every couple of months. Certainly something pointing out
the differences between the wizards and questions newsgroups at least
would be worthwhile.
>
>I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I just wrote a book -
>"Life With UNIX" - specifically because people were always knocking on
>my door asking the very same questions that appear in comp.unix.
I second the recommendation about this book. Unfortunately it seems
that people read books that tell you how to edit files and use the C
compiler and then post questions. (Minor flame, why do people post a
question and then say "dont post 'coz I dont read this newsgroup". If
they read it, perhaps the question wouldn't need to be asked.)
>I wouldn't have posted this, except that I've never seen any mention
>of it on the net (and Prentice Hall doesn't spend very much on
>advertising, grrr).
Consider it mentioned again...
jimmy
--
-m------- Jimmy Aitken Phone : +44 252 373035
---mmm----- Pyramid Technology Ltd PSS : 234248300152
-----mmmmm--- Concept 2000, Farnboro' Rd. Telex : 859056
-------mmmmmmm- Farnboro', Hants GU14 7NA ...!mcvax!ukc!pyrltd!jimmy
Doug Gwyn
Yes, it's an eminently readable book. It may tell the "naive user"
more than he wanted to know about UNIX; it certainly explains why a
lot of UNIX features are the way they are and should therefore go
far toward answering many common questions.
John E Van Deusen III
> in UNIX World [June 89] and the reviewer spent two columns just
I have read this article as well as the review in UNIX WORLD, and I
still don't know the cost, date published, or the ISBN.
The book may have possibilities. After taking the Unix Trivia test in
the May/June, 1989, issue of CommUNIXations, I realized that I had
little hope of ever becomming a real UNIX guru without more exposure to
UNIX history and folklore. As the reviewer in UNIX WORLD, Walter Zintz,
said, "people don't function well without roots in the things they do".
So heap that Berkely stuff on me. Just how did that that unfinished
version of vi Bill Joy was working on before graduation get wiped out?
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865
uunet!visdc!jiii
Alex Williams
>>and I agree. Isn't it time for a monthly "Introduction to
>>comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards" posting, containing
>>frequently asked questions and answers? I think this has worked well in
>>some other groups.
>
>
>I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I just wrote a book -
(Thats enough -Ed)
Dear Don et al,
Now to start an argument .... This year I have spent about 150 pounds on
books. That may not seem much but as a computer science undergraduate in England
the way the grant laws work out for me (I don`t get one) this ammount is one
third of my gauranteed income for a year.
Although I am sure your no doubt excellent should have been amongst my
aquisitions this year sadly it isnt and although I do have the obvious unix
books I feel a periodical posting to be potentially useful.
I may suggest that if we cencored all popular information or anything
that appeared in some book somewhere the group would rapidly loose popularity.
The monthly posting should be an easy way to grasp popular facts as well as
llow all who are irritated by this to pass it at the rate of one `n' per month.
I *do* see what you mean and *do* find alot of this information tiresomebut there was a time when I was glad to learn it and this must currently apply
to others too.
Finally may I appolagise for the brusk manner of the summary of Don`s
concidered letter.
Alex Williams
Computer Science Dept. janet: ..uk.ac.swan.pyr
University College Swansea. uucp: ..cybaswan.uucp
Wales
Paul Houtz
>and I agree. Isn't it time for a monthly "Introduction to
>comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards" posting, containing
>frequently asked questions and answers? I think this has worked well in
>some other groups.
>
>For starters, such an article could contain
>
> - examples of what is appropriate for .questions and what
> is appropriate for .wizards
>
> - "how to get a recursive directory listing"
>
> - "how to remove a file whose name begins with a dash or whose
> names contain odd characters"
>
> - maybe a list of some good Unix books
>
>Most usenet groups might benefit from having a monthly introductory
>posting. If all we need is a volunteer to put together such a document
>and post it on a regular basis, I volunteer. I don't claim to have all the
>answers myself but I'll be happy to organize and edit an appropriate
>monthly posting.
Well, I disagree. Yeah, every once in a while somebody out there get's his
nose out of joint because he has seen the same question twice. Well, that's
too bad. I learn a lot from this group. I wade through a lot of crud that
isn't of the slightest interest to me. It doesn't bother me. I also answer
questions with answers that I have gotten from this group. I think that
it is serving it's purpose.
I definitely DONT think you should start discouraging people from asking
questions by flaming them for posting questions that have been posted
before. How are they going to know? And I sure don't want some
self important #*&@(*$ weeding out information that I might need because
he has seen it before.
All you are going to do with this course of action is limit the excellent
communication that goes on in this group. I am definitely against it.
Paul Houtz
HP Technology Access Center
10670 N. Tantau Avenue
Cupertino, Ca 95014
(408) 725-3864
hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!gph
gph%hps...@hplabs.HP.COM
Felix Lee
with Usenet's lack of history. If news never expired, then there
wouldn't be this problem. You'd have the different problem of trying
to find things in the terabytes of data.
I don't find repeatedly asked questions terrible. Things change fast
enough that many answers become different. What's worse is the dozens
of responses with duplicated, incorrect, or partially correct answers.
This is the moderation problem.
Thinking of better, faster, more-powerful-than-a-locomotive moderation,
--
Felix Lee fl...@shire.cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!shire!flee
Guy Harris
>communication that goes on in this group. I am definitely against it.
Oh, rubbish. "This course of action" is to have a monthly posting,
containing the answer to said frequently-asked questions, in the hopes
that people will be able to get the answer *without* asking the question
and *without* provoking all the *low*-quality communication that these
questions often provoke (i.e., answers from people who don't know the
answer any better than the person who's asking the question, but who,
unlike the asker, don't know that they don't know the answer).
And he didn't suggest that, as you seem to imply, you should
"discouraging people from asking questions by flaming them for posting
questions that have been posted before". As for your question "How are
they going to know?", the answer is "they read the introductory posting,
and get their questions answered perhaps before they even ask it".
There's no "self important #*&@(*$ weeding out information that I might
need because he has seen it before" involved, as you imply; there's a
periodic posting that *contains* this very information that you assert
is being "weeded out" by some supposed "self important #*&@(*$".
If said periodic posting reduces the number of *wrong* answers posted to
these common questions - and, perhaps, even educates those who would
post those wrong answers as to what the right answer is - it will, with
any luck, *increase* the quality of the communication that goes on in
this group, not "limit" it.
David Elliott
>saha...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes:
>Well, I disagree. Yeah, every once in a while somebody out there get's his
>nose out of joint because he has seen the same question twice. Well, that's
>too bad. I learn a lot from this group. I wade through a lot of crud that
>isn't of the slightest interest to me. It doesn't bother me. I also answer
>questions with answers that I have gotten from this group. I think that
>it is serving it's purpose.
Oh, yeah. It's *much* better to have this scenario start a couple of
times a month:
1. Person asks a simple question which has been answered
many times in the last 10 years
2. Some group of people reply by mail answering the question;
some right, some wrong.
3. Some group of people post answers to the question; some
right, some wrong.
4. Some group of people post followups to these wrong answers,
correcting them.
>I definitely DONT think you should start discouraging people from asking
>questions by flaming them for posting questions that have been posted
>before. How are they going to know? And I sure don't want some
>self important #*&@(*$ weeding out information that I might need because
>he has seen it before.
Nobody is flaming anyone. In fact, such a posting could very well
reduce the amount of flaming. The current version of the proposed
monthly posting does in fact ask that people not flame, but that
they simply refer the person asking the question to the monthly
posting.
Nobody is saying "don't ask questions". My personal opinion is
that what the monthly posting does is to say "don't post answers to
questions that have been answered a lot, and if you do, here's a set of
correct answers".
As far as "self important #*&@(*$s", nobody is weeding out anything,
least of all information you might need. In fact, you should be
thankful that someone is taking the time to answer the question
correctly for you, instead of taking the chance that this week's
new Unix hacker is giving you a correct answer.
>All you are going to do with this course of action is limit the excellent
>communication that goes on in this group. I am definitely against it.
If you call the scenario I showed above "excellent communication", then
I agree, it will limit that.
You say above that you don't mind wading through crud that doesn't
interest you. Well, if the monthly posting doesn't work, then you'll
have one more posting of crud per month that you can ignore. If it
does, maybe the signal to noise ratio of this group will increase to
a point where there's no crud to wade through.
--
David Elliott d...@Solbourne.COM
...!{boulder,nbires,sun}!stan!dce
Larry Campbell
is an excellent idea, and anyone volunteering to do it has my support
and thanks.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
camp...@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146
Paul Houtz
>I think the notion of a periodic "Frequently asked questions" posting
>is an excellent idea, and anyone volunteering to do it has my support
>and thanks.
I agree. I am sorry for spouting off they way I did. My wife says
I am having my period :-)
I misunderstood the intention of the posting. I do have a concern,
however, which I think is valid.
I would like to see the following disclaimer posted at the head
of each of these summaries. My justification follows the disclaimer:
<< --------------------------------------------------------------------->>
WARNING!!
This is a list of FREQUENTLY asked questions and answers, and you are
invited to read this list as a CONVENIENCE to see if an answer to your
question has been posted in the past. These answers are moderated, so
they are quite reliable.
It is NOT NECESSARY for you to read this list before posting a question
to this newsgroup; it is considered BAD nettiquette to flame any one
for asking a question that is answered in this posting.
<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------->>
I am still worried about constriction of the bandwidth of this
newsgroup. I am afraid that someone will ask a question that has
been asked before, that is summarized in the monthly posting, and
some jerk will flame them for not reading the monthly posting.
It is not easy with our newsreader to read all the notes. It is
quite easy to accidentally skip a note, and never see the FAQ list at
all. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt.
In my shop, there is a big reluctance on the part of most people
to post to usenet. If someone does gut themselves up enough to post
a question to the net, and somebody flames them for this reason, it
will probably be the last time they ever post.
Now, some people probably think that is good, but it concerns me.
When you create a list of frequently asked questions, you inadvertently
create a rule that everyone must pour through that list every time they
want to ask a question, or else they will get flamed for asking a question
that is in that list. It also seems to me that the list will get
arbitrarily large.
It also seems to me that this imposition of restrictions is a bad thing.
The usenet is what it is. It's too bad if people ask questions and
occaisionally get wrong answers. The same thing happens when they ask
questions verbally. They must have the common sense to test out whatever
answer they get.
Those timid souls who get flamed for posting a question who's answer
is in the list, can reply to the flamer with the above disclaimer, and
can feel assured that the flamer was in the wrong, and they were in the
right. Perhaps, someday, they will have an answer to a question someone
desperately needs, and they will have the courage to post!
Thank you all for your time in reading this.
Doug Gwyn
>create a rule that everyone must pour through that list every time they
Not at all. Having read the list once, everyone now knows the answers
to those questions. There is no need to refer to it later when asking
for enlightenment, because one is not going to ask about something
already understood.
Guy Harris
> I would like to see the following disclaimer posted at the head
>of each of these summaries. My justification follows the disclaimer:
>
><< --------------------------------------------------------------------->>
> WARNING!!
>
> This is a list of FREQUENTLY asked questions and answers, and you are
> invited to read this list as a CONVENIENCE to see if an answer to your
> question has been posted in the past. These answers are moderated, so
> they are quite reliable.
>
> It is NOT NECESSARY for you to read this list before posting a question
> to this newsgroup; it is considered BAD nettiquette to flame any one
> for asking a question that is answered in this posting.
><< ---------------------------------------------------------------------->>
>
> I am still worried about constriction of the bandwidth of this
>newsgroup. I am afraid that someone will ask a question that has
>been asked before, that is summarized in the monthly posting, and
>some jerk will flame them for not reading the monthly posting.
The following text appeared in the proposed version of the posting:
What About Those People Who Continue to Ask Stupid or Frequently
Asked Questions In Spite of This Document?
Just send them a polite mail message, possibly referring them to
this document. There is no need to flame them on the net - it's
busy enough as it is.
The following text also appeared:
Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
been answered plenty of times already. Thank you. ...
so, while it's not absolutely *necessary* that they read the FAQ posting
first, it is certainly *recommended* that they do so, and this is a Good
Thing. For one thing, if they find the answer in that posting, it may
mean their question'll be answered more quickly than if they posted
first....
Larry Campbell
- I would like to see the following disclaimer ...
- This is a list of FREQUENTLY asked questions and answers, and you are
- invited to read this list as a CONVENIENCE to see if an answer to your
- question has been posted in the past. These answers are moderated, so
- they are quite reliable.
-
- It is NOT NECESSARY for you to read this list before posting a question
- to this newsgroup; it is considered BAD nettiquette to flame any one
- for asking a question that is answered in this posting.
- I am still worried about constriction of the bandwidth of this
-newsgroup. I am afraid that someone will ask a question that has
-been asked before, that is summarized in the monthly posting, and
-some jerk will flame them for not reading the monthly posting.
Whether the disclaimer is present or not, they will get flamed. I don't
think they _should_ be flamed, but neither should they be wasting bandwidth
with ignorant questions for which answers are readily available.
- It is not easy with our newsreader to read all the notes. It is
-quite easy to accidentally skip a note, and never see the FAQ list at
-all. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt.
Now, wait a minute. If they never see the FAQ list at all, then they'll
never see the disclaimer either, so why put it in?
In my opinion, if you know the FAQ list exists, you have an obligation
to read it before posting questions. This is simply common courtesy.
And if you don't know it exists, you deserve to be gently reminded,
not flamed. This is also common courtesy.
-When you create a list of frequently asked questions, you inadvertently
-create a rule that everyone must pour [sic] through that list every time they
-want to ask a question, or else they will get flamed for asking a question
-that is in that list. It also seems to me that the list will get
-arbitrarily large.
The list need not be huge; questions with long answers should probably
refer the reader to the appropriate page in K&R or other suitable reference.
(Yes, I do believe that people without a copy of K&R should not be posting
in this group.)
David C Lawrence
reading this group for more than a month; here comes the latest round
of "Why is grep named the way it is?", one of the questions answered
in news.announce.newusers:Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Now
why don't people read that document? It's not poorly written ... it
is quite interesting in some ways. (I love the part about Indiana and
trying to legislate the ratio of dimensions of a circle.)
This isn't a flame to whoever asked the grep question to begin with (I
don't even remember who it was and I shan't look it up just to point
fingers) but would you please read news.announce.newusers, even if you
aren't techinically a newuser? And when the monthly posting comes
around for comp.unix.{questions,wizards} would everyone please read it
the first time they see it? Thanks.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("ta...@pawl.rpi.edu" "ta...@itsgw.rpi.edu" "ta...@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"I realize the Internet isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it."
-- Greg Woods
Paul Houtz
> Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
> Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
> been answered plenty of times already. Thank you. ...
>so, while it's not absolutely *necessary* that they read the FAQ posting
>first, it is certainly *recommended* that they do so, and this is a Good
>Thing. For one thing, if they find the answer in that posting, it may
>mean their question'll be answered more quickly than if they posted
Sorry, but I disagree entirely with this portion of the posting.
Reason: Some jerk will definitely flame.
You seem to think that all newsreaders are alike. They aren't.
You seem to think that all system administrators are alike. They aren't.
You seem to think that everyone who posts to a group will have read it
for months before posting. They don't, and I don't think they should.
I know that it is SUGGESTED that people read the group for a while before
they post, but it isn't always necessary or desireable. It will be very
easy for someone new to the group who missed this discussion to miss the
summary and post a question that has already been asked.
Therefore, I suggest that we handle this by making the posting of the
summary as a convenience for readers and NEVER say "Please don't ask
these questions again".
Anyone who has read that far in the summary will know not to ask those
questions again.
Paul Houtz
>Anyone who still thinks we don't need this posting probably has not been
>reading this group for more than a month; here comes the latest round
>of "Why is grep named the way it is?", one of the questions answered
>in news.announce.newusers:Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Now
Wrong. I have been reading this group for over a year. I still don't
really see a need for it. However, I use Notes to read the news, and
I can easily skip from title to title by using the <shift> <l> key.
I have never had a problem with people posting the same question
repetively. When I see a question I have seen before, I just type <shift> L.
Perhaps you should consider the idea of making your newsreader a
little friendlier, rather than trying to reduce the communication in this
newsgroup?
You see, for every guru like yourself that has read this group for
years, there are probably 2 or 3 new people reading the group every month.
Unix people claim to want to spread the word about unix to the world,
yet I keep seeing attempts to make it difficult for new people to get
involved, rather than attempts to make it easier.
Here is the scenario that happens in many ways all the time:
New user hears about usenet from a friend. New user has this question
he has been wondering about for some time, and he sees this group called
comp.unix.questions. So, he posts his question, thinking that there are
a bunch of friendly people out there that want to help. He doesn't know
about news.announce.newusers, or worse, he does know, but there is nothing
in the group to read (as at our site, most of the time).
Instead of getting a friendly reply to his question, some old expert says,
"Hey! I am really sick and tired of you young kids posting questions that have
been asked before. Read the summary and get a life."
Don't tell me it won't happen, because I know it will.
Now the new user has a pretty bad taste in his mouth about the whole
comp.unix.questions newsgroup. And about the so-called gurus. 'nuff said.
New users out number the crusty old guru's on this system by a fair
margin now, and that ration will only INCREASE in the future(if unix is
going to catch on like the "gurus" say it will). So maybe we should look
into making this group more helpful to the MAJORITY of the readership
(new users).
My suggestion is to change the TONE of the posting, not remove it.
Make it more appropriate to the readership of the group, i.e., users who
have only been reading it for less than a year. Make it possible for
them to at least see that anyone who flames them for posting a FAQ is in
the WRONG. Say in the warning that it is NOT NECESSARY to read this
list before posting, that it is only a CONVENIENCE. Then say explicitly
that anyone who flames a person for posting a FAQ is IN THE WRONG.
Guy Harris
>refer the reader to the appropriate page in K&R or other suitable reference.
>
>(Yes, I do believe that people without a copy of K&R should not be posting
>in this group.)
I would not go that far; many UNIX users know little or nothing of C,
and that's just fine. (Just as many users of VMS know nothing of
Macro-32 or BLISS, say.)
Now, I'd say that nobody without access to a copy of K&R should be
posting to "comp.lang.c", but that's another matter.
Dick Gill
I envision this list as more dynamic, although I may be expanding the
notion of the original poster. For simple answers, this list could,
of course, be pretty much definitive; that could certainly cut down
bandwidth for the person who wanted a simple answer (as opposed to
seeing their name in print).
There may be another function of such a list (or, UGH! another new
one), and that is to point the reader to the conclusions (if any ;-)
of an extended discussion about a question with a complex answer. As
an example, I am about to try to bring up a bi-directional modem port
on a Tower 32/600, and know that there was extended discussion over
several weeks about doing the same thing on a Sun system. It would be
useful if I could know who to ask were the discussion went. Since I
can't read all the news every day, things pass; often a discussion
that is only mildly interesting today becomes important tomorrow.
Do people out there keep enough record of these discussions that an
index of topics and source people would be feasible?
Dick
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dick Gill Professional Solutions Group (703)761-1163 ..uunet!psgdc!rg
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dick Gill Professional Solutions Group (703)761-1163 ..uunet!psgdc!rg
Larry Campbell
->The list need not be huge; questions with long answers should probably
->refer the reader to the appropriate page in K&R or other suitable reference.
->
->(Yes, I do believe that people without a copy of K&R should not be posting
->in this group.)
-
-I would not go that far; many UNIX users know little or nothing of C,
-and that's just fine. (Just as many users of VMS know nothing of
-Macro-32 or BLISS, say.)
-
-Now, I'd say that nobody without access to a copy of K&R should be
-posting to "comp.lang.c", but that's another matter.
Oops, you're right. I temporarily forgot that I was posting to
comp.unix.questions and thought I was back in comp.lang.c (where
there are even _more_ stupid questions, if you can believe it).
Bruce G. Barnett
> It will be very
> easy for someone new to the group who missed this discussion to miss the
> summary and post a question that has already been asked.
I would hope that the FAQ postings will have an expire period of 1 month,
and that the news admins don't override the default expire.
Assuming systems use the default expire period of two weeks, then
50% of the time the FAQ posting will be the first article the new reader
sees.
--
Bruce G. Barnett <bar...@crdgw1.ge.com> a.k.a. <barnett@[192.35.44.4]>
uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett bar...@crdgw1.UUCP
Steve Hayman
>"Hey! I am really sick and tired of you young kids posting questions that have
>been asked before. Read the summary and get a life."
I sure don't want that to happen, and I'll be very disappointed if
posting this article causes "experts" to start flaming back like that.
That isn't the intent at all. If you read the entire article, you
will see that it says
What About Those People
Who Continue to Ask Stupid or Frequently Asked Questions
In Spite of This Document?
Just send them a polite mail message, possibly referring them to this document.
There is no need to flame them on the net - it's busy enough as it is.
Maybe this is too far down. I can change the second paragraph of the
posting from
Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
been answered plenty of times already. Thank you. This article
includes answers to:
to something like
Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
been answered plenty of times already - and please don't flame someone
just because they may not have read this particular posting.
but I do not want to add something that says
>Say in the warning that it is NOT NECESSARY to read this
>list before posting, that it is only a CONVENIENCE. Then say explicitly
>that anyone who flames a person for posting a FAQ is IN THE WRONG.
because (a) obviously it is not necessary to read this list before
posting, who ever said that it was? and (b) I don't care for the tone -
I'm not trying to write some Official Document Governing Usenet Rules of
Conduct. I agree with what you're trying to point out and I think
it's covered adequately already.
Steve Hayman
Guy Harris
>Make it more appropriate to the readership of the group, i.e., users who
>have only been reading it for less than a year.
You still haven't given any solid evidence that the posting is so
horrible! As I pointed out already, it *quite explicitly* says "don't
flame people who've asked these questions". You're probably going to
get some flames sent anyway; I see no indication that the posting will
necessarily *increase* the likelihood of them, and it may damp them down
if people *do* read the part that says "don't flame".
However, the posting should actively encourage people to read the
posting first; if it just says "well, if you don't want to read this, go
ahead and post anyway", it's kind of pointless to make the posting in
the first place.
Remember that the gurus are NOT the only ones helped by this posting! A
novice who reads the posting is probably going to get their answer
sooner than one who posts; the purpose, after all, of any such posting
is to get an answer, not just to post for the sake of posting.
Furthermore, if it cuts down on the number of *answers* posted, both
novices *and* gurus win. The volume of traffic is cut down by reducing
the number of repeated postings of even correct answers, making it
easier for all to read the group, and the volume of *in*correct answers
is cut down as well, which *really* helps novices, who may not be
knowledgable enough to know that the answer *is* incorrect.
Paul Houtz
>Maybe this is too far down. I can change the second paragraph of the
>posting from
>
>Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
>Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
>been answered plenty of times already. Thank you. This article
>includes answers to:
>
>to something like
>
>Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
>Asked Questions. Please don't ask these questions again, they've
>been answered plenty of times already - and please don't flame someone
>just because they may not have read this particular posting.
Steve, you got my point exactly. I agree with this change, and with
your appraisal of what I suggested. I was not trying to give exact wording,
more the "jist".
I think that the mere fact that somewhere in the FAQ list is says
"don't flame" is enough. The way you have worded it seems quite acceptable
to me. Thanks for your efforts, both at accommodating crusty old
curmudgeons like myself, and for trying to help make this newsgroup
more useful!
Jon A. Tankersley
1) Modify existing readers to make a 'first-time-use' check like rn does.
Tell the first time readers about the more common FAQ's and ask them to
read them. (Won't work. People never read signs :-(). Also recommend
they read the Usenet News intro documents.
2) Set up an easy set of 'aliases' or commands for the old-timers to email
to a neophyte +/- flames, their choice.
3) With the posting, post an update kill file for the old-timers, or if the
FAQ questions are delimited in some 'specific' fashion, we can craft a
tool to generate the kill file from the FAQ.
1) could be accomplished by a fairly simple front end shell script.
2) could be done in a shell script also, run from within the reply.
3) would be real nice and would trim the chaff out. Might require some
extra smarts though. /[Rr]ecursive/ && / ls[$ ]/ Kill would get the
"How do you do a recursive ls" and leave "recursive panels".
An established format for the FAQ questions would enable us to modify
the kill file easily. Since the FAQ is just text, something like
"###QUESTION###" delimiting each one would make it real easy to hack
something together to generalize a kill file. Or even
"###QUESTION###keyword keyword keyword.........$ would enable the
smarter kill request to be formed.
Comments?
-tank-
#include <std/disclaimer.h> /* nobody knows the trouble I .... */
ta...@apctrc.trc.amoco.com ..!uunet!apctrc!tank
Glen Overby
>some jerk will flame them for not reading the monthly posting.
I don't really think this will happen. I've been maintaining the "Minix
Information Sheet" (a Frequently Asked Questions posting for comp.os.minix),
and I can't recall *anyone* being publicly flamed for not reading the Info
Sheet. I don't know about email flames, but I do know that there are a few
helpful people who mail out copies of the Info Sheet to those asking common
questions. I think it has been a Good Thing for the group, and it has
seemed to cut the redundant discussion down fairly well.
I'm all for the Comp.unix.* Frequently Answered Questions posting. I wish
the author luck, and hope he gets the support of the rest of the group
readers.
--
Glen Overby <ncov...@plains.nodak.edu>
uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP) ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)
David C Lawrence
is clearly meant to be more than just myself, yet no one else
(including info-unix) was included in the To: or Cc:. I would have
given this back to the author to let him post it, yet I have a better
chance of sleeping with a Playmate tonight than I do of getting mail
down that bang-path. I waited to see whether he would post it but he
hasn't after a day and half. Please direct any comments to Mr Hovell.
--Begin forwarded artilce--
This will undoubtedly cause great gnashing of teeth and much breast-beating
by those eager to defend the 'non-commercial' aspect of the net. The truly
pure-of-heart would be advised to hit 'n' at this point, since this posting
is rated 'R'. But here goes anyhow:
This document (Frequently Asked Questions About UNIX), if I don't miss my
guess, could eventually become a *really* handy guide - and may grow to a
compendium of considerable size. Is there a possibility that it could be
set up with, say, Nutshell, to have permission to publish it from time to
time - at a profit for editing, indexing, and distribution (*not* creation),
of the copy? If it were started off with that intent, and a willing publisher
were to step forward, I'd sure rather have a handy desk-reference than a bunch
of printed out 8 1/2 x 11 computer sheets.
All flames will be donated to my favorite charity.
--
Bud Hovell
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: UUCP: {sun!nosun | tektronix!{percival|bucket} | attmail}!whizz!bbh :
: TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: +1 503-636-3000 :
: USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"Vote NO!"
--End forwarded article--
leonard.oppenheimer
Hi!
I am a lurker who is a UNIX novice, and probably have many frequently asked
dumb questions up my sleeve.
I think the list is a wonderful idea.
It must be that those who proposing it work for AT&T, since all I am seeing
is endless discussion about what the disclaimer of the list should look
like, instead of the product itself.
How about it, guys?
Thanks!
exit
quit
^D
vamoose
:ZZ
:q
HELP!!!!
--
Leonard Oppenheimer
att!opus!leo
Tim O'Reilly
> This document (Frequently Asked Questions About UNIX), if I don't miss my
> guess, could eventually become a *really* handy guide - and may grow to a
> compendium of considerable size. Is there a possibility that it could be
> set up with, say, Nutshell, to have permission to publish it from time to
> time - at a profit for editing, indexing, and distribution (*not* creation),
> of the copy? If it were started off with that intent, and a willing publisher
> were to step forward, I'd sure rather have a handy desk-reference than a bunch
> of printed out 8 1/2 x 11 computer sheets.
O'Reilly & Associates would be glad to publish such a book,
and to pay a fee for whatever pieces were included, assuming
that there is interest in such a book. (We have often
thought that a printed "reader's digest" of the main
currents on the net would be a fun book to do. However,
let me point out that editing and producing such a book
could be far more work than "creating" the contents. There
is an awful lot of material to sift through!
Please let me know if you think this is a good idea and what
you think might be in such a book.
Thanks.
P.S. The company name is O'Reilly & Associates, not
Nutshell. In addition to publishing Nutshell Handbooks, we
publish a separate series of books on the X Window System,
and provide custom writing and production services creating
documentation for various vendors. Calling us Nutshell is
like calling AT&T UNIX :-).
--
Tim O'Reilly (617) 354-5800 or (800) 338-NUTS
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Publishers of Nutshell Handbooks
90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140
UUCP: uunet!ora!tim ARPA: t...@ora.uu.net