Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:03:13 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: karl@Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) Cc: terry@lambert.org, MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, j@uriah.heep.sax.de, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, current@FreeBSD.org, scrappy@ki.net Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) Message-ID: <199610311903.MAA25818@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610311858.MAA16345@Mars.mcs.net> from "Karl Denninger" at Oct 31, 96 12:58:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > What about my users who thank me for *NOT* doing this, because > > > they find Elm's options too confusing? > > > > I can't believe elm is still that popular (even though it's *my* personal > > favorite). I have to say this has got to be a reductio ad absurdum > > argument -- a straw man. It's possible to test the failure case during > > config by compiling up a small test program. > > ELM is incredibly popular. About half our user base prefers it, and we > have a LARGE user base. > > If I break something in elm on our ISP, I hear about it in minutes if not > faster. Then again, its *MY* preferred user agent as well. I am not suggesting anything which would break elm. I am suggesting that the appeal to "my users who thank me for *NOT* doing this" is a strawman. If done correctly, the user never sees the process. I think it is generally agreed that users complain when things break, and remain silent when things work. If they didn't we would have to pick a strategy other than 'making things work' to reduce the amount of phone traffic we have to hire people to handle. I have *never*, in 12 years, gotten a support call over something working. YMMV. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610311903.MAA25818>