Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:29:18 +1100 From: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: newbies mailing list Message-ID: <19980301192918.49200@welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <19980301161407.25838@freebie.lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Sun, Mar 01, 1998 at 04:14:07PM %2B1030 References: <19980301105650.47895@welearn.com.au> <19980301133234.11473@freebie.lemis.com> <19980301162232.44505@welearn.com.au> <19980301161407.25838@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 01, 1998 at 04:14:07PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Sun, 1 March 1998 at 16:22:32 +1100, Sue Blake wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 01, 1998 at 01:32:34PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 March 1998 at 10:56:51 +1100, Sue Blake wrote:
> >
> >> I think that I could summarize the arguments against with "the blind
> >> leading the blind".
> >
> > Of course it would. I don't see that as a problem, so long as nobody
> > expected it to be anything else.
>
> Well, I suppose that's a viewpoint. What advantage do you see in the
> blind leading the blind? What advantage do you you think others will
> see in the blind leading the blind?
Actually, blind people do a much better job of leading blind people than
sighted people. They know what to tell the other person to look for, things
that sighted people don't see.
> >> At least in -questions you have a couple of one-eyed men. You also have a
> >> number of people who can scare newbies off, sure, but that will happen
> >> even if there's a newbies list.
> >
> > There are some people who on some occasions treat newbies badly. Sometimes
> > it's by accident, sometimes of necessity. I'm not just talking about nasty
> > comments. Far more common are answers which sound like a line out of the man
> > page, or assume obvious things like that the person will know to restart the
> > damn thing (and how to) after changing its configuration :-)
>
> That's a problem, all right. When I'm answering a question, I often
> ask myself just what background the person has, especially if, as so
> often, the message is less than informative about this background. I
> generally give the person the "benefit of the doubt": I assume he
> knows what he's talking about, and he just has this little problem.
> If, on the other hand, they say "I'm a complete newbie, and I don't
> know what the (**&* this is all about", I try to be more helpful.
That's a reasonable approach, given the probabilities.
But how do you think it makes people like me feel, when we join and lurk
like we're supposed to, and discover that every one who asks a question
understands a concise answer?
> I could do this the other way around, of course. One way or another,
> I'm liable to annoy somebody. And quite honestly, I'd rather annoy a
> newbie who can't even read the regular postings I send every week than
> a budding hacker who is liable to stay with the FreeBSD movement.
If they haven't subscribed to the list or have done so in the past few days
they haven't seen the weekly postings. Unless they have both an Internet
connection and a working mail system, they cannot subscribe even if they do
know it exists and can handle the traffic.
I have read your guidelines and concluded from them that I will understand
FreeBSD perfectly before I'll be able to write a perfect question.
I would have bitched at you about it but saw the need to keep -questions on
track was more important, and that few people took any notice anyway.
If I am bamboozled by a problem, I don't know enough about the problem to
give the information that is required. Indeed, if I knew those details, and
realised that they were significant, most times I could solve the problem
myself at that point, newbie and all.
> You could, of course, cater for these people in the newbies list, like the
> guy who recently wrote "Somebody told me not to run fsck on a live file
> system, so I did it and my system crashed. What did I do wrong?". If you
> do that [cater for these people], you get what you deserve.
Nobody deserves to get nothing. Nobody is deliberately stupid. Nobody bares
themselves for public scrutiny unless their need is greater than their
embarrassment. It is better to ask a question badly than never ask.
None of these views have a place on -questions.
> Hmm. You *are* a philanthopist at heart.
Just another stupid newbie :-)
> > Outcomes include people living with problems rather than asking for
> > help, giving up FreeBSD because they think it's too hard, and
> > sticking with FreeBSD when it's clearly too hard for them.
>
> Right. Of course, giving up FreeBSD because they think it's too hard
> might be the right choice. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
> people aren't out to get you.
People who have glimpsed an X screen once and expect to simply install
FreeBSD and use it mindlessly like sin95, but without the hangs, have a lot
of things to work out. Having contact with experts only, they don't get to
see the combination of effort and enjoyment that is required, so they can't
make an informed choice about whether or not to persevere. After having come
for all the wrong reasons, they leave for all the wrong reasons. If they can
be saved, we can save them by being role models. These people can turn out
to be those with most to offer in later years. If they don't want to be
saved, we can at least keep them out of -questions while being frank about
what they can and can't do without ever reading a manual.
--
Regards,
-*Sue*-
find / -name "*.conf" |more
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980301192918.49200>