Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:36:35 +1100 From: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RTFN (was: What to do next?) Message-ID: <19980308183635.24728@welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199803080137.BAA19914@awfulhak.org>; from Brian Somers on Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 01:37:14AM %2B0000 References: <19980308104737.05529@welearn.com.au> <199803080137.BAA19914@awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 01:37:14AM +0000, Brian Somers wrote:
> You're asking "where is it documented that I must start up a shell
> and run an application in order to connect to the internet" ? Am I
> reading this correctly ?
No, you're not. I'm asking for RTFM answers to be a little more specific
in order to encourage the good documentation we have to be properly used.
You do want people to read this stuff, right?
> I think it's extremely reasonable to expect people to be able to figure
> out that the ppp program makes the ppp connection and nothing else.
Sure, but the problem here is not a problem with ppp. The problem in these
examples is people unable to recognise success when they see it for the
first time, and instead of being congratulated they are publicly admonished
for failing to do something which they have provided proof of doing.
> If you wish to be pedantic, "using another window" is documented in
> the man page at the end of the MANUAL DIALING section :-)
I can't think of any man page that is more practical and helpful than the
one for ppp, but there's a lot of other documentation for it too, all of
which must be found and read before giving up. I'm not surprised to see
someone miss or misunderstand one line, or seek confirmation of their
understanding.
> You're being paranoid. I am always loathe to answer the simple
> questions because it normally implies that the asker hasn't done
> their homework. This isn't always the case, and if someone
> retaliates to my answer, I'll explain this, usually apologise
> (because they explain their question a bit more and prove they've
> tried to figure whatever it is out), and then answer the question
> properly (unless they haven't actually done their homework).
Thank you for this fine example of how the game is played.
I'd prefer to play a game where arrogance is not rewarded but endeavour is.
I've been told that this is supposed to be everyone's playing field.
Move over.
> > Everyone: If you want someone to stop asking for help it'd be kinder to
> > just say so or shut up. Nobody forces you to answer questions you don't like.
> > Once you criticise people who ask questions you open yourself to criticism
> > of your answers. Whether that's deemed heresy or fair play, it will happen.
>
> On the flip-side, people should be aware that documentation exists
> for a reason.
This guy must have read the documentation pretty damn well to get to the
point of total success that he illustrated. Clearly he had no problems with
ppp itself. He'd already got a terse hint that the task had been achieved.
Then he should be sternly spoken to about the documentation? Come on!
> There's nothing worse than spending hours on a document describing how
> CHAP works, then getting someone posting a question saying "CHAP doesn't
> work in ppp, has anyone else seen this ?" (this is a bit extreme, but not
> impossible).
Quite so, but you shouln't let it make you paranoid.
> I've documented everything I think warrants documenting, and in the
> end, sometimes RTFM is the only answer you can really give.
Consider whether the aim is to offer help, or to be spiteful, or to have a
joke on someone with your mates. RTFM is quite valid, but for the first only.
> > Reading documentation is essential, but it does not guarantee understanding,
> > even if the relevant manual is identified and found. "RTFM" has its place
> > when full RTFM details are given, but abuse of "RTFM" reduces its validity.
> > In some cases a useful retort might be RTFN (Remember the f***ing newbie).
> > Their numbers are increasing and so will their use of this mailing list.
>
> Then so must their use of the list search facilities.
How can you be so sure that they have knowledge of, easy access to, and
success with, the list search facilities? Would an answer have been found in
this case? I doubt it very much.
> Helping people that don't attempt to help themselves first is a waste of
> time.
Then either do not "help" them, or show them _how_ to help themselves,
or be up front about telling them to go away if that's what you really mean.
BTW we were talking here about someone who has proven that he has already
put in the hard yards and just needed a little confirmation at the end.
Is there no room for that here?
> The knowledge will be forgotten unless you have to work to obtain
> it in the first place (IMHO).
Should we use the same argument to refrain from giving details of any
genuine bug in ppp that may arise in the future? I don't think you'd like
that very much, even though the puzzle would do you a tremendous amount of
good.
> > Some people here cannot always remember what it feels like to be earnest but
> > ignorant and I wish they'd leave the screen clear for the ones who can.
>
> I don't agree.
>
> Almost all of the RTFM-type responses here and on usenet are
> warranted. The ones that are not are usually heavily accosted by the
> likes of Jordan et al.
I don't agree. Some people are time-wasting idiots and need to be told how
to change, but never deserve public scorn. Other people simply make mistakes.
If you never claimed to be perfect yourself, don't expect it in strangers.
Some RTFM responses here are very good, but a few self-indulgent ones stand
without comment. I'm commenting. You must learn to take as good as you give.
> The remaining ones that aren't warranted are simply badly worded
> questions, and the poster really has to be assertive (and brave)
> enough to try again.
That is simply not good enough. Since when does someone have to be extremely
thick skinned, resilient and determined when faced with public scorn to run
FreeBSD? That is most definitely not in the introductory reading material.
> The newbie that's not only ignorant about FreeBSD but is ignorant of
> the best way to ask a question suffers....
That is something on which everyone agrees. If there is no humane solution,
one needs to be found.
> but they eventually learn if they read the group/list long enough 'cos
> they see this sort of ``attitude'' mail now and again (read: discussion on
> why RTFM responses are given).
>
> It's not always fair.
Precisely how long should that kind of person read here before learning to
forgive? How can you be sure they can (technically) do that? Please document
it :-) You're asking an awful lot of those least able to comply.
Thank you for clarifying some aspects of the limitations to tolerance that
obedient people asking questions can expect to find. I still believe that
these attitudes are held by a minority of people. Wrong again?
I hope you read my observations as closely as I read documentation, closely
enough to see that I heartily encourage advice to read documentation but
fear that the effectiveness of this advice will be lost if it is abused.
--
Regards,
-*Sue*-
find / -name "*.conf" |more
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980308183635.24728>