sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) (05/24/89)
Jonathan I. Kamens writes: >\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. sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (812) 855-6984
libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) (05/24/89)
In article <21089@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sahayman@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 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 libes@cme.nbs.gov ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes
cowan@marob.MASA.COM (John Cowan) (05/25/89)
In article <21089@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes: > - examples of what is appropriate for .questions and what > 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 <cowan@marob.masa.com> or <cowan@magpie.masa.com> UUCP mailers: ...!uunet!hombre!{marob,magpie}!cowan Fidonet (last resort): 1:107/711 Aiya elenion ancalima!
jimmy@pyrltd.UUCP (Jimmy Aitken) (05/25/89)
In article <1189@muffin.cme.nbs.gov> libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) writes: >In article <21089@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sahayman@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
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/26/89)
In article <1189@muffin.cme.nbs.gov> libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) writes: >"Life With UNIX" 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.
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (05/27/89)
In article <1189@muffin.cme.nbs.gov> libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) writes: > > ... I just wrote a book - "Life With UNIX" - ... It was just reviewed > in UNIX World [June 89] and the reviewer spent two columns just > gushing about it. ... 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
cs9h7atw@cybaswan.UUCP (Alex Williams) (05/31/89)
In article <1189@muffin.cme.nbs.gov> libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) writes: >In article <21089@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sahayman@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, .... > >I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I just wrote a book - >"Life With UNIX" ...... (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
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) (06/03/89)
sahayman@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. > >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%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM
flee@shire.cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee) (06/04/89)
"Frequently asked questions" monthly postings are an attempt to deal 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 flee@shire.cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!shire!flee
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/04/89)
>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. 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 #*&@(*$". If said periodic posting reduces the number of *wrong* answers posted to these common questions - and, perhaps, even educates those who would post those wrong answers as to what the right answer is - it will, with any luck, *increase* the quality of the communication that goes on in this group, not "limit" it.
dce@Solbourne.COM (David Elliott) (06/04/89)
In article <810059@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes: >sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes: >Well, I disagree. Yeah, every once in a while somebody out there get's his >nose out of joint because he has seen the same question twice. Well, that's >too bad. I learn a lot from this group. I wade through a lot of crud that >isn't of the slightest interest to me. It doesn't bother me. I also answer >questions with answers that I have gotten from this group. I think that >it is serving it's purpose. Oh, yeah. It's *much* better to have this scenario start a couple of times a month: 1. Person asks a simple question which has been answered many times in the last 10 years 2. Some group of people reply by mail answering the question; some right, some wrong. 3. Some group of people post answers to the question; some right, some wrong. 4. Some group of people post followups to these wrong answers, correcting them. >I definitely DONT think you should start discouraging people from asking >questions by flaming them for posting questions that have been posted >before. How are they going to know? And I sure don't want some >self important #*&@(*$ 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 dce@Solbourne.COM ...!{boulder,nbires,sun}!stan!dce
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/04/89)
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. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) (06/06/89)
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: >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. Paul Houtz HP Technology Access Center 10670 N. Tantau Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 (408) 725-3864 hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!gph gph%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/06/89)
In article <810060@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes: >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, ... 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@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/07/89)
> 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....
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/07/89)
In article <810060@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes:
- 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.)
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (06/07/89)
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
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 '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"I realize the Internet isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it."
-- Greg Woodsgph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) (06/07/89)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > 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.
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) (06/07/89)
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >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. Paul Houtz HP Technology Access Center 10670 N. Tantau Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 (408) 725-3864 hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!gph gph%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/08/89)
>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.
rg@psgdc (Dick Gill) (06/08/89)
In article <10369@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <810060@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes: >>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, ... > >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. 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
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/08/89)
In article <1770@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
->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).
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (06/08/89)
In article <810063@hpsemc.HP.COM>, gph@hpsemc (Paul Houtz) writes: > 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 <barnett@crdgw1.ge.com> a.k.a. <barnett@[192.35.44.4]> uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett barnett@crdgw1.UUCP
sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) (06/09/89)
In article <810064@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes: > 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." 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@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/09/89)
> 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. 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.
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) (06/10/89)
sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes: >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!
zjat02@apctrc.trc.amoco.com (Jon A. Tankersley) (06/10/89)
I think that there are a couple of 'solutions' available here.
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 .... */
tank@apctrc.trc.amoco.com ..!uunet!apctrc!tankncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (06/12/89)
In article <810060@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes: >[...] 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. 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 <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP) ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (06/15/89)
I am posting this piece of apparently misdirected mail; the audience
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--
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"I realize the Internet isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it."
-- Greg Woodsleo@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (leonard.oppenheimer) (06/15/89)
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@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) (06/18/89)
In article <TALE.89Jun14153222@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu>, tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > 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: tim@ora.uu.net