Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!news.cc.utah.edu!news.caldera.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Date: 24 Jun 1995 12:15:30 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 362
Message-ID: <3sgvl2$hdf@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <3qfhhv$7uc@titania.pps.pgh.pa.us> <3sb2sr$rl8@pandora.sdsu.edu> <3sd2ml$16e@pandora.sdsu.edu> <3sdm7m$fh@park.uvsc.edu> <3sfcvp$12n@pandora.sdsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) wrote:
]
] 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! :)
No, it's not. There isn't one.
>
[ ... wanting questions answered ... archives ... ]
] 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?
There is a [max] one week integration time for the archive
contents. If it's a new question (unlikely, since the net
release is before the ROM release), then 0-6 days.
This is actually stated in the archive information page.
If they are in a net.ghetto, well then, they will be unalbe to
post a question in the first place anyway.
] > Ah! You want the FAQ! 8-).
]
] I sure do, if my questions are answered in the FAQ! :)
On their CDROM.
] > [ ... 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.
It isn't fundamentally superior *or* inferior. Which is beside
the point. Being fried, I didn't "enunciate" my post. My intent
was to identify the class of networking questions (implementation
policy) as seperate from *all* questions. You have to admit I
used broken English in the quote, and that's out of character for
me. The policy in this case is set by the implementer (and he's
on that list).
Apparently it wasn't as obvious as I thought that the question
wasn't about a bug in FreeBSD, but about a deviation from accepted
industry practice by Linux, in an area not covered by RFCs. I have
already had it pointed out to me that this wasn't very clearly
communicated either.
[ ... back to semantic discussions ... ]
] > > 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.
This is incorrect. There is a hidden assumption that you will
be able to read only the things which are relevent, as a matter
of choice. In reality, the number of things which seem relevant
but which actually aren't is typically higher in a news group
than on a mailing list. That's just the way it is.
] 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!
Like Merlin said in Excalibur: You can't tell until you bite, and
then it's too late...
You can't trivially reject irrelevant messages in either medium
easily. What you can do is pick the medium with the smallest
percentage of the whole being made up of irrelevancies. And
that's the mailing list.
] > 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.
It's not. 8-).
] If the newsgroup hierarchy is bad, I think it is better to fix it
] than abandon it.
We will. There are rules regarding the frequency of change
in news groups. That's actually another reason for mailing
lists: you have better control without idiots jamming you into
registered trademark containing heirarchies. If you need a new
list, you make it instead of waiting for 6 months (that's the
rule) between revisions.
] > 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!
That's an instance subscript, not a parameter. 8-).
] I think that Linux vs. FreeBSD is a very real issue for FreeBSD
] and that ignoring it is a bad idea.
It's an issue I have addressed in passing before and been
mail-bombed for my trouble. I know of at least six people
in the same boat as me: They've done Linux and BSD kernel
work and are in a position to actually point at the plusses
and minuses of, for instance, the VM architecture in various
operating systems (among other categories) but refuse to do
so on the grounds that their hands and feet still hurt from
their last crucifixion. No thank you; maybe when I can play
the piano again.
] > 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?
Usenet rules. Read them, hate 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.
Usenet is only roughly classified by content. Even if it were
possible to do something about the BSD heirarchy some time soon,
you would still be entreated to "MAKE MONEY FAST".
] > > 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.
Well, I'm a user and I don't perceive exclusivity. Other users
have argued vehemently that they, also don't see the exclusivity
(and some of them didn't even subscribe to the mailing lists! 8^))
every time this ad hominim (ad cybernetium? ad machina?) attack
comes up in an attempt to give creedence to a misconception about
BSD that Linux users wish were true.
] > 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)?
net.politics, mostly. Said politics not being applicable to
non-net communications media, like mailing lists.
] > > 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."
50 x 2k / 1 group = 100k (avg)
50 x 2k / 10 lists = 10k (avg)
10k << 100k
] > 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? :)
I didn't. "Someone" suggested that the "someones in charge"
should be accessable via a particular medium to cause that
benefit to exist for people with access to the particular
medium. 8^) 8^).
] > 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.
I didn't ask relative to achievability (a realistic approach
would acknowledge that not all questions may be answered in any
case), I asked relative to goal.
Usability engineering is 5 to 10 times more valuable than after
incident support.
] > > 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.
Then redirecting *all* neophytes to mailing lists (like the
neophyte in question) is acceptable practice, and we aren't
having this discussion. 8^).
] > 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.
I think maybe the problem in this case is that FreeBSD, not being
a commercial OS, doesn't have a unified marketing department. This
is much like Linux.
In a commercial venture, thre would never have been a split in
camps at all, since there would be money to club people into
submission to the 800 pound gorilla.
By the same token, there would have been a single legal entity
for USL to name as a codefendent in the USL/BSDI suit.
[ ... stnadard "answer-getting" protocol deleted ... ]
] 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.
Uh, that was nearly verbatim "Nettiquite".
] > 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!
] +---------^^^^^^^
] :)
No. USENET is a store-and-forward network that occasionally uses
the internet for transport. "Network" is the correct terminology.
] 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.
THE "authoritative" response would be "that's a generic question,
not a FreeBSD question".
AN "authoritative" response would be "Linux violates accepted
industry practice".
The *cannonically* correct venue for resolving "what is accepted
practice for loopback devices?" is comp.protocols.tcp-ip.
I probably erred in not giving a "non-answer" and pointing at
the author of the code instead of one of these other locations.
8^)
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.