Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!saturn!larryr
From: larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Date: 23 Jun 1995 21:50:49 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
Lines: 340
Message-ID: <3sfcvp$12n@pandora.sdsu.edu>
References: <3qfhhv$7uc@titania.pps.pgh.pa.us> <3sb2sr$rl8@pandora.sdsu.edu> <3sd2ml$16e@pandora.sdsu.edu> <3sdm7m$fh@park.uvsc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.sdsu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Terry Lambert (terry@cs.weber.edu) wrote:
> Clearly, this has grown to the point that I would not expect a
> reasonable person who did not belong in an advocacy group to
> continue following it.
This *is* the FreeBSD advocacy group! :)
> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) wrote:
> > since many (most?)
> > questions have more than one person who would like to get the answer,
> > I don't want to blindly launch mine into a mailing list to which I do
> > not subscribe and ask for a personal response any more than I would
> > do the same for a USENET newsgroup.
>
> OK, I buy that. So by the same token, you would be willing to
> read articles that have been posted in the past to find your
> answers as well. Independent of whether the article was on a
> newsgroup or a mailing list.
>
> And searchable archives would be even better, right?
>
> Voila!
>
> 1. http://minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au/BSD-info/bsdnews_search.html
> 2. http://www.freebsd.org/How/mail-archive.html
Wonderful!
Now, when the average person gets the new 2.0.5 CD-ROM in the mail (from
Walnut Creek of course) and has the same questions as a lot of other
people are having because of the types of problems like those expressed
by Darryl Okahata in his recent article (in the "Slight Flame From
Linux User" thread), how long will they have to wait to find the answers
in these archives? Little enough time that they will not have any need
for newsgroups or mailing lists?
> > I don't want to have to personally ask every question to which I want
> > the answer. I believe the average person wants to have a place to go
> > to see the questions of the other average people and to know that the
> > developers are participating there,
>
> Ah! You want the FAQ! 8-).
I sure do, if my questions are answered in the FAQ! :)
> > and I don't think that a mailing list is as convenient for
> > this purpose for the average user as USENET.
>
> Ah! An opinion. This is one opinion with which I happen to
> disagree. Feel free to make a case as to why I should agree
> with your conclusions rather than mine.
I would like to, and I would be happy to see a convincing case to
the contrary, but I don't have enough news-reading time! :) :) :(
> [ ... All developers should be "only a phone call away" ... ]
>
> > My point was that many VIPs (not all) for major products are
> > there in the USENET newsgroup and so it is not asking very
> > much for the developers of FreeBSD to do the same.
>
> Many (not all) FreeBSD developers are. It just so happens
> that the particular question that was asked hit one that
> wasn't likely to buy into the discussion.
Great, but the response to the poster was that "the correct place for
the networking questions is the mailing list questions@freebsd.org."
If that is the place where all the questions should go, I don't see why
it is fundamentally better then, e.g., comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.questions
would be.
> [ supplied a pointer to questions@freebsd.org, where the developer would
> likely see the question ]
>
> I can't see how you can fault me there.
I am grateful for the help you provide. I also think that most people do
not want to subscribe to mailing lists if they can get answers on USENET,
and that the level of support for Linux on USENET is high enough that if
FreeBSD wants to do better, then they need to have USENET be the primary
place to go for users' questions to be read by the people who know the
answers (except of course if those questions are in an archive or FAQ
already).
> > I don't see that it takes any less time to read N mail messages
> > than N USENET articles,
>
> This assumes that:
>
> 1) The signal to noise ratio (ie: the lack of crap like
> this) isn't better on a list than it is on the net (I
> can assure you that this is a false assumption... for
> one thing, we're having the discussion here).
Why does it assume that? My point was that the same information
presented as a mailing list instead of a newsgroup does not
necessarily take any less time to read.
Besides, if the signal to noise ratio (ie: the lack of crap like
this:) was better on the mailing list, then it would take MORE
time to read N messages in the mailing list, because there would
be fewer crap messages that could be skipped!
> 2) That the net heirarchy is equally or more rich a
> classification enviroment as the mailing lists (it's
> not; the idiotic group renaming fixed that). So
> a potential reader could read a much higher ratio of
> messages applicable to himself on a list than on the
> net.
I did not say or assume that the number of messages in the mailing
list would be, is, or should be equal to, less than, or more than
the number of articles in the newsgroup. I said that I don't see
that it takes less time to read N mail messages than N USENET
articles. My only "assumption" was that N was same for both.
If the newsgroup hierarchy is bad, I think it is better to fix it
than abandon it.
> 3) That N(1) == N(2) (in fact, N(2), the number of mail
> articles, is typically higher on a daily basis, if
> you put the "Linux vs. FreeBSD" and "Linux Advocacy"
> threads in your killfile).
When did N become a function!
I think that Linux vs. FreeBSD is a very real issue for FreeBSD
and that ignoring it is a bad idea.
> That's 3 strikes against Usenet. All of the above assumptions
> are wrong.
Three strawman assumptions defeated (actually 2.5). :)
> > so I think this is where people could assume that it takes
> > developers takes less time to read the mailing list because
> > the "noise" level is lower,
>
> No. The reason is because the traffic here in "misc" is split
> up into 9 or more mailing lists. If a developer is involved
> in a single aspect of the OS, they can read only that list
> and have a fraction of the articles to read and sort out as to
> relevance that they would here.
I don't see exactly how "involved in a single aspect of the OS"
applies to "questions@freebsd.org". Anyway, why not split .misc
into a better set of newsgroups and use them?
> > which to me implies that using a mailing list filters out
> > that noise
>
> Clearly, you define "noise" as "posts not relevant to the group",
> whereas most people will define it as "posts that I personally
> would not have read had they been classified by content".
It seems to me like classification by content is what determines
relevance so I don't see the practical difference between those
two things, and I am not sure of what general use is a definition
of noise that could vary significantly from person to person.
> > which is where a perception by the users of exclusivity on
> > the part of the developers could come.
>
> This does not logically follow. However, I will admit to the
> possibility that users could harbor perceptions that were, in
> fact, incorrect. Possibly even by making the same mistakes in
> logic that have lead you to your misperceptions.
I don't think I have made any mistakes in logic. I am not sure
what perceptions I have expressed that were mistaken. But I could
not agree more that users can and will harbor perceptions that
are incorrect, and if FreeBSD wants to be (correctly) perceived
most often as a community and OS that are as friendly to the users
as Linux, then I think that will mean making some compromises to
the illogical users.
> One thing the community does is use
> mailing lists to reduce the per topic traffic by precategorizing
> the information that the particular people feel is relevant. This
> helps to (significantly, in some cases) defray costs to lower the
> barrier to entry.
Why can't there be a well-chosen newsgroup hierarchy that accomplishes
the same thing for intransient topics (newsgroup names)?
> > What is the price cutoff for "elitest" anyway, and what
> > happened to them not having the "news-reading time?"
>
> The "price cutoff for 'elitest'" is rather obviously, in your
> mind, the cost of a net connection up to your standards.
I don't have a price cutoff for elitest, because I don't even use the
term, and I don't see why sending, e.g., 50 2kByte mail messages is
significantly less costly than sending 50 2kByte USENET articles, so
consequently I don't see how USENET is inherently any more elitest
than a mailing list or requires a better "net connection."
> > how does it benefit the user to have a product developed that
> > they do not know how to use and about which they cannot get
> > their questions answered? It is not so clear to me that one
> > or the other is always better for the user.
>
> Which is better for the user, knowing with 100% certainty that
> they can ask "someone in charge" (very elitest concept, by the
> way)
( so why introduce it? :)
> question "A", or an OS that precludes them having to ask
> question "A" in the first place?
Since that is not (IMO) the tradeoff, and neither goal can be
achieved anyway, I don't think answer is relevant.
> > My personal opinion as far as FreeBSD goes from what I have
> > seen in this newsgroup is that too much emphasis has been
> > placed on pandering to neophytes,
>
> I thought the basis of your complaints was that neophytes (like
> people who think the loopback interface had dick-all to do with
> rwhod broadcasts, or who don't realize that it has been industry
> standard parctice for over 16 years to not have broadcasts over
> the loopback interface repeated because it is a SIMPLEX interface)
My idea of neophyte is someone with vastly less knowledge than that.
E.g. someone who does not know what "loopback interface" or "broadcast"
or "simplex" mean. Someone from CompuServe, America OnLine, Prodigy,
etc. The people that the user friendly installation, etc. are for.
> could not pester people who either were not well enough connected
> to handle the traffic or were connected, but had to make a choice
> between writing new code and answering silly questions about old
> code (that they didn't write anyway)?
>
> Make up your mind!
>
> Are you simply playing "Devil's Advocate"?!?
I did not complain. I said that I think if FreeBSD wants to market itself
to the average person, i.e. a neophyte, as providing technical support to
its users by the developers with a level that is equal or superior to that
of Linux, then users should feel that they can go to a newsgroup to post
and read questions that will be read by the developers.
My personal opinion is that FreeBSD should not be so concerned about whether
or not the average person perceives FreeBSD to be as easy to use or as well
supported as Linux; but just because I think that is not the best goal doesn't
mean I should do nothing when I see things that I think are counter to it.
> > But it is still frustrating for me when I see a question asked
> > on a newsgroup or mailing list and I think, oh I am glad someone
> > asked that, but I never see the response because the discussion
> > was taken off-line because the authoritative answer had to
> > come through private E-mail because the person with the knowledge
> > does not have the time read and respond to questions in the group.
>
> It's annoying, but it's life. People privately reply to posted
> questions all the time to avoid the inevitable flames. The
> correct mechanism is to post a "me too" or "please ost replies"
> message if it is truly a burning issue.
>
> In this particular case, if the advice had been followed (it
> wasn't; I read the list I suggested), the correct "protocol"
> for the poster to follow would be to either (a) post a followup
> to his own article once he had the answer, or (b) post a "will do"
> article.
>
> In the former case, you would have been satisfied because you
> would have seen the answer. In the latter case, *your* correct
> protocol would be send the poster a "please post replies" or
> a "please CC me" mail message.
The world would be a much better place if everyone knew and followed
these protocols. I think few enough people do that if in another
group for another OS a different protocol is more often followed -
users post to the newsgroups and get answers right there from
developers and other users - then some people will migrate to that
OS instead of FreeBSD. I personally don't think that is necessarily
a bad thing though.
> It is a big, big mistake to equate "Usenet" and "Internet".
Like this?
> > All of a sudden I find the truth that these geographically
> > challenged people have the time but are hapless victims of
> > USENET elitism! (:
+------^^^^^^
| > AMEN, BROTHER! HALLELEUYAH!
| >
| > FREE NETWORK CONNECTIONS FOR THE (M)ASSES!
+---------^^^^^^^
:)
> > I am not sure what the handling of internal developer
> > communications has to do with communications among the users
> > and the developers.
>
> Neither am I sure. Which is why I suggested the list for this
> question. It was the apropriate venue for obtaining the most
> authoritative possible response.
But I don't think a mailing list *should* be considered the
appropriate (or as prompted my original response, the "correct")
venue for obtaining the most authoritative answer if FreeSBD
wants to have as good a reputation for convenient access to
technical support of the users by the developers as Linux.
> > I would not expect the developers to be communicating via a
> > .misc or .help or .questions type of group for FreeBSD or Linux.
>
> Neither would I *expect* it. You were aware that this news
> group was titled "comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc" and thus falls
> into your list of "not expect the developers to be communicating"?
I don't expect the developers to be communicating *with each other* here.
Larry