wcs) (09/21/89)
In article <14695@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
] Readers should take no offense at 'RTFM' answers here, because
] one of the most IMPORTANT lessons for new Usenet users is in fact
] to consult all available offline documentation first, BEFORE posting
Writers, on the other hand, shouldn't just tell readers to RTFM -
they should tell users where to FIND the fine manual, and what kind
of things to look for, as well as gently:-) reminding them than
manuals exist, both online and offline, and that manuals are for reading.
Not all systems have the decency to install manual pages where the 'man'
command can find them, and users don't always know where to look.
Traditional UNIX manuals are terse, and organized more for finding
something when you know what to look for than hand-holding new users
through a tutorial. UNIX Tutorials are also terse, and are designed
to get programmers to start hacking and reading the manual. I like
them, but not every user is a hacker, and non-hackers need to be
told how to use UNIX manuals. And there keep being all these new
users who are starting from scratch again :-).
(*I* learned UNIX the old-fashioned way - read&try the tutorial to
get a flavor of things, read the ENTIRE manual while thinking about
how other systems (TSO-yuk!) did it, skimmed over stuff that didn't
make sense the first time, tried to do stuff using the obvious commands,
reading the SOURCE CODE to see how other people had solved problems
similar to mine, hacked more (a bit less naively), read the sh
manual pages about 6 more times, and then my new boss told me I was
the administrator for the VAX he'd ordered. Operating system?
DEC doesn't give us UNIX? -- at this point I started to *REALLY* learn UNIX.)
] Kill files are used by the 'rn' newsreader package. They have no
] meaning to the rest of 'news' per se.
This is a useful kind if thing to tell users, though users
of rn may have already had the sense to read the manual;
users of "readnews" may be assuming the manual is just old....
and if 'man rn' doesn't work, find where your adminsitrator
put the rn source and look for 'rn.1'. Hint - it's probably
not in /usr/src/cmd/rn where it belongs ....
Bill
--
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
# also found at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs Somerset 4C423 Corp. Park 3
# More Colombians die from American tobacco than Americans from Colombian coke.noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (N. Del More) (09/23/89)
In article <14695@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > Readers should take no offense at 'RTFM' answers here, because > one of the most IMPORTANT lessons for new Usenet users is in fact > to consult all available offline documentation first, BEFORE posting I'd like to take this opportunity to add my $.02 concerning the continuing RTFM battle. 1. It takes up as much if not more bandwidth to follow-up on a users request for information only to tell him to RTFM. 2. Often, the subject in question is not only of immediate concern to the original poster, but of concern and/or interest to other readers as well. Additionally, the poster may have ALREADY RTFM, but may instead be posting in order to clarify his/her understanding of the subject. 3. Telling someone to RTFM does nothing to satisfy his or her need for information, nor does it contribute to the knowledge or under- standing of other readers. 4. Increasingly, users of *nix systems are unfamiliar and/or inexperienced with the Operating System. Additionally, it is also increasingly common that these users are using a system which is based upon microcomputer technology, and as such these sites may not have access to a System Administrator who is as thoroughly familiar with *nix as that found in larger/corporate sites. 5. The FM ( F****** Manual) may not be available for immediate reference. Additionally, the man pages are not routinely bundled with all flavors of *nix. 6. The FM's tend to be written by technically oriented individuals and are in many cases difficult to understand, especially for the newer users and/or non-professional administrators who have not been long exposed to *nix. The point that I'm trying to make is this, it is far more useful to provide a brief, and comprehendable description or remedy to the question poised, and to specifically refer the individual to manual page in question for additional information. For example: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The kill file is a function of the "rn" program and may be used to eliminate the need to read undesired postings. Its syntax is basically: /<pattern>/<command> for example, to junk all articles in the "control" newsgroup having as the subject line "Cancel" the following entry would be added to the $HOME/News/control/KILL file: /Cancel/j further information concerning kill files and other "rn" commands may be found in the rn.1 manual page. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This not only provides the originator of the query with the basic information he/she is seeking but additionally, it provides him/her with the source of further information. Finally, the above example is useful in educating other interested readers, who may or may not even be aware that such a function exists, and which they themselves may find useful. In summary, the RTFM comments often posted do nothing to promote the further understanding of the *nix operating system. As most of us are aware, the learning curve is steep and apparently, to me at least, unending. Not a week goes by where I do not find myself lacking, in some way, the information I need to complete a particular task. Without the benefit of many helpful and understanding members of the USENET community I would be considerably less knowledgeable than I am today. Share the knowledge! Noel P.S. In case anyone is interested, I only recently found myself in need of a kill file, and after a quick scan of the FM inplimented it. But I must add that having read previous articles concerning kill files I was, fortunately, aware of the function and, essentially, its syntax.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/25/89)
In article <130@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (N. Del More) writes: >1. It takes up as much if not more bandwidth to follow-up on a users > request for information only to tell him to RTFM. Nonsense. If you try to do the manual's job for it, you will get 10 little niggling correction followups from everyone else who thinks they understand the manual better than you do. Proven time and again in practice. And then next month, you will have the privilege of starting all over again. On the other hand telling users to read the manual before posting questions requires very little bandwidth, except when the professional second-guessers decide to make an issue of it. :-) > . Additionally, the poster may have ALREADY RTFM, > but may instead be posting in order to clarify his/her > understanding of the subject. It happens all the time -- and when it does, the user says so. And the question is more interesting. >3. Telling someone to RTFM does nothing to satisfy his or her need > for information, nor does it contribute to the knowledge or under- > standing of other readers. Oh yes it does - it sends him and others to the manual! Come on now. If I go over to comp.lang.c and post something saying, "I AM NEW HEAR AMD I WANT TO INKRIMENT A VURIABLE BY 1 (OONE) IN "c" AN D CAN YOU TEL ME HOW." -- what do you think the appropriate response is? Post a chapter length dissertation netwide on the ++ operator, together with the expected raft of followups? Or mail, yes MAIL the guy a kind request to RTFM before posting? The reason one might not MAIL, yes MAIL such a response in newusers.questions is precisely that you want to broadcast the RTFM message widely. >4. Increasingly, users of *nix systems are unfamiliar and/or > inexperienced with the Operating System. Additionally, it is > also increasingly common that these users are using a system > which is based upon microcomputer technology, and as such these > sites may not have access to a System Administrator who is as > thoroughly familiar with *nix as that found in larger/corporate > sites. If you run UNIX you should have manuals. If you don't have manuals you can buy them in the bookstore. Rn requires none of the above. And even if you have to run upstairs to check them, you should do so rather than posting the question as a news article to the net. You will assuredly get the answer quicker by going upstairs. And the exercise will do you good. >6. The FM's tend to be written by technically oriented individuals and > are in many cases difficult to understand, especially for the > newer users and/or non-professional administrators who have not > been long exposed to *nix. Fine, then if no other human being at your office or school understands what you want to know, and the manual entry is cryptic, you post something (or mail to someone you know is an expert) saying "I've read the manual about doing X, but I don't understand what Y means, or what the syntax for Z is supposed to be"; and you will get informative followups and all readers may learn something. Happens all the time. > For example: >The kill file is a function of the "rn" program and may be used to >eliminate the need to read undesired postings. Its syntax is basically: > > /<pattern>/<command> > >for example, to junk all articles in the "control" newsgroup having as >the subject line "Cancel" the following entry would be added to the >$HOME/News/control/KILL file: > > /Cancel/j > >further information concerning kill files and other "rn" commands may be >found in the rn.1 manual page. Wonderful (although you omitted the THRU line and the global KILL file) but why wasn't this simply posted as a followup way back when this started, rather than offered as an "exhibit" in this silly argument? Rather than criticize the followups of others (ESPECIALLY via article!!), it is better to provide a better posting yourself. Now turn to Hymn 356, "Let Us Feed Vaal"... -- Machines will never think, for "thought" ?! Tom Neff will be redefined, as often as needed, !? tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET as that which a machine cannot do. ?! ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (09/26/89)
In <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
Tom> Or mail, yes MAIL the guy a kind request to RTFM before posting?
Here is something that many of us perceive to be a big problem with
RTFM postings. Do you really believe that RTFM is a kind request? It
is neither; it is an imperative and a rude one at that. If, for
example, a consultant here was approached with a question and the
client was told to "read the fucking manual", that consultant would
certainly be in more than a little hot water. What? The F doesn't
necessarily mean that? Regardless, it usually does, whether that's
the way it was intended or that's the way it was taken. There are
better ways to point someone to a manual than using this tremendously
overused acronym. If you want to be helpful, try being polite too.
Help goes beyond just providing pointers to answers.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) (09/26/89)
From article <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET>, by tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff): > In article <130@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (N. Del More) writes: >>1. It takes up as much if not more bandwidth to follow-up on a users >> request for information only to tell him to RTFM. > > Nonsense. If you try to do the manual's job for it, you will get 10 > little niggling correction followups ..... Well, how about a middle course? > If I go over to comp.lang.c and post something saying, "I AM NEW HEAR > AMD I WANT TO INKRIMENT A VURIABLE BY 1 (OONE) IN "c" AN D CAN YOU TEL > ME HOW." -- what do you think the appropriate response is? Post a > chapter length dissertation netwide on the ++ operator, together with > the expected raft of followups? Or mail, yes MAIL the guy a kind > request to RTFM before posting? One appropriate response might be "x++; RTFM for details." That was half a line, not a chapter. Posting it tells the innocent newuser what to look for in TFM, and it might help other innocent newusers too. And it doesn't say enough to warrant a niggle. Experts can and should guide novices through the manuals. That takes knowledge of what's in the manual, and what's missing from it, and how to find what you need. The experts have that. The novices will eventually get it, and then they can be experts, too. A real expert is not afraid to share knowledge. An insecure half-expert, having barely enough knowledge for one person, says "RTFM" for two purposes: first, to avoid exposing his/her own ignorance; second, to keep the novices from catching up too fast. If you show some knowledge, you can avoid that charge. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep25.205459.28308@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Tom> Or mail, yes MAIL the guy a kind request to RTFM before posting? > >Here is something that many of us perceive to be a big problem with >RTFM postings. Do you really believe that RTFM is a kind request? ... In this context "RTFM" is being used as shorthand for any response directing the questioner to offline docs instead of reproducing their contents on the net. It needn't include that acronym or its implied rudeness. In particular, it didn't in the posting that started this discussion, although the umbrage taken by one or two posters might lead a reader without access to the original article to guess otherwise. Actually "RTM" would be a kindler and gentler equivalent acronym. There is just this little problem with the initials "RTM" these days! :-) -- I'm a Leo. Leos don't believe * * * Tom Neff in this astrology stuff. * * * tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (N. Del More) (09/27/89)
In article <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > >Wonderful (although you omitted the THRU line and the global KILL file) >but why wasn't this simply posted as a followup way back when this >started, rather than offered as an "exhibit" in this silly argument? >Rather than criticize the followups of others (ESPECIALLY via article!!), >it is better to provide a better posting yourself. I never claimed to be an expert on rn or the use of kill files, nor can I recall ever making such a claim on any subject. Furthermore, I was NOT attempting to provide an answer to anyone concerning anything! The object of my article was express my opinion concerning the RTFM argument espoused by yourself and others, a point which you obviously did not or cannot comprehend in view of the rather inane and pointless arguements you presented. Despite your futile arguments to the contrary, my opinion is not altered. The fact remains that their are those of us who do enjoy reading articles concerning the use and/or intricacies of the programs we use or may want to consider using. And we DO NOT appreciate nor desire to read the rantings of a dyed-in-the-wool know-it-all self-appointed-guru-net-policeman telling someone to RTFM! If you can't refrain from wasting my time, and that of others with your RTFM comments, please refrain from posting them. Contrary to your opinion, the majority of us are aware that manuals do indeed exist, and at least some of us do know how to read. You may now consider this a criticism of your article (ESPECIALLY via article!!) just for you. And while I'm at it, every month Rick Adams (I believe I have the right person) posts a series of articles concerning the use of usenet, among them one deals specifically with Netiquete. May I suggest you --- RTFM B-) Regards! Noel P.S. No spelling flames please.... I already know my spelling AND grammar are atrocious, but then.... I never claimed to be an english major either. -- Noel B. Del More | decvax!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/28/89)
In article <135@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (N. Del More) writes: >And we DO NOT appreciate nor desire >to read the rantings of a dyed-in-the-wool know-it-all >self-appointed-guru-net-policeman telling someone to RTFM! Well, get used to it. That's why you're here :-) >You may now consider this a criticism of your article (ESPECIALLY via >article!!) just for you. This is better done via net mail. Stuff posted as articles to the newsgroup should be of general interest, not personal in nature. -- "UNIX should be used :: Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET> or as an adjective." -- AT&T :: ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP only)
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (09/29/89)
In article <1989Sep25.205459.28308@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: If, for >example, a consultant here was approached with a question and the >client was told to "read the fucking manual", that consultant would >certainly be in more than a little hot water. But that's all a consultant is, someone who is PAID to RTFM. :-) (At least thats what a few of around here think we get paid for) -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP