Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nexus.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!news.provo.novell.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Date: 23 Jun 1995 06:16:22 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 377
Message-ID: <3sdm7m$fh@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <3qfhhv$7uc@titania.pps.pgh.pa.us> <3sb2sr$rl8@pandora.sdsu.edu> <3sd2ml$16e@pandora.sdsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
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 was the logic whereby I attempted to redirect the other
post.
Despite that fact, since it is possible that a single resonable
person is still following this thing, I will lay it out for you
one more time, this time leaving the assumptions behind.
Doing that tends to result in rather large posts, and this one
will be no exception, I'm sure. 8-(.
larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) wrote:
]
] > > I don't think the average user wants to have to subscribe to a mailing
] > > list if they have a question about the product for which they would
] > > like to get an authoritative answer
[ ... ]
] > Uh, you don't have to join the mailing list to send questions
] > or to get responses.
[ ... ]
] Uh, I don't really have to subscribe to a newsgroup to post a question
] and ask for a personal E-mail response either, but 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
| *BSD Usenet News Searcher
| Enter an egrep search here:
|
| o December 1994 onwards
| o May 1994 onwards
| X August 1993 onwards <--- DEFAULT
| o January 1993 onwards
| o June 1992 onwards
2. http://www.freebsd.org/How/mail-archive.html
| FreeBSD Mail Archives
| Welcome to the FreeBSD mailing list archive!
|
| This is a fully indexed archive of the main FreeBSD mailing lists hosted at FreeBSD.org. The
| database is current and will be updated on a weekly basis.
] 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-).
3. http://freefall.cdrom.com/How/faq/
| Frequently Asked Questions for
| FreeBSD 2.0
|
| Gary Clark II, FAQ@FreeBSD.ORG
] 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.
[ ... 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.
The question that I responded to with a list address bears on
the routing and ARP code. Garrett Wollman wrote large parts
of the code, so he's the *most* authoritative source -- not
that there aren't many *nearly as* authoritative sources
reading and posting to this group.
Instead of saying "ask Garrett to find out *precisely* what is
going on" and posting Garrett's email address (which I don't know
without taking the time to look it up), I gave the address of a
mailing list Garrett is known to read (the address of which I *do*
know without taking the time to look it up). Garrett would
probably have killed me otherwise anyway. 8^).
I can't see how you can fault me there.
] 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).
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.
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).
That's 3 strikes against Usenet. All of the above assumptions
are wrong.
] 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.
] 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".
For instance, this exchange belings in an advocacy group (which,
again thanks to "the great renaming", we are still in the grace
period in which additional changes can not be made).
] 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.
] > A lot of people are not fully net
] > connected: they are limited to email, etc. This includes some
] > of the developers, especially those in Eastern Block countries.
] >
] > Expecting a news feed as the price of admission to "the kindom of
] > the developers" is a little elitest.
]
] What are these people using to get E-mail? Couldn't they use UUCP?
Usually, that is what they are using to get email.
] If so, why don't they get a newsfeed of the appropriate groups?
Yes. But since many countries charge message unit trarrifs for
phone use, the cost would be prohibitive.
] How much would that cost, and what could the FreeBSD community
] do to help defray it?
I'm glad you asked. 8^). 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.
] 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. Luckily
the FreeBSD community is somewhat less elitest, or we would have
missed significant contributions by a number of good people
without your (or my) financial resources. 8-).
] 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!
COME ON COL! (Checkslovokia OnLine -- country picked at random).
] > I don't think that anyone can successfully argue that a trade
] > of question answering time for additional developement time is
] > a tradeoff against the user.
]
] I don't know what "successfully" would mean in this context, but
] 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.
By "successfully", I meant "by way of logically sound argument
having proved their point to logically sound observers". 8-).
Which is better for the user, knowing with 100% certainty that
they can ask "someone in charge" (very elitest concept, by the
way) question "A", or an OS that precludes them having to ask
question "A" in the first place?
] 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)
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"?!?
] which I think is not where FreeBSD has any strategic
] advantage over Linux or ever will;
You're right. Linux has more people to throw at newbies. This
is why it is *imperitive* that FreeBSD become as bullet-proof
as possible to guard against *needing* to throw people at newbies.
] nevertheless, I think that this newsgroup is the best place
] for the questions of non-neophytes,
The question (in question 8^)) was a neophyte question.
Broadcasts are not *supposed* to work on the loopback interface.
It's the misunderstanding of accepted industry practice that
caused them to misimplement implement this "feature" and caused
the user to become confused in the first place.
] and that developers should be here to read and respond to
] those questions.
There used to be a developement group before "the great renaming",
and god willing, there will be again.
The fact remains, that was a newbie question, and would not have
belonged there, either. Where it *did* belong was the group
that used to be called comp.os.386bsd.questions. Since "misc"
is the bucket we have, it's the bucket we use. But don't expect
everyone to be happy about it.
] > Meanwhile, there are people like me, who will answer the
] > question as best they can, then point the person at the more
] > authoritative source (even if it isn't, God forbid, a newsgroup)
] > if they want further answers.
]
] I believe you are a net.god.
Thanks, but your belief is misplaced. 8^).
] 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.
] > Other people actually take repeated questions and post them to
] > the questions list on their own behalf (repetition is the only
] > sure way to distinguish between a qeustion that has been answered
] > in private email and one that has not been answered when a posting
] > with an answer has not taken place). They then take the answers
] > and post them here ...
]
] So why is this better than having the question and the answer posted
] to the newsgroup in the first place?
We get developers that we would not otherwise have to ask questions
of (or obtain code from). Developers because of one restriction or
another can not follow the news groups.
It is a big, big mistake to equate "Usenet" and "Internet". It
is an even bigger mistake to equate "net connected person" with
"able contributor".
] 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.
All of this discussion hinges, of course, on my response having
been insufficiently authoritative. 8^).
] 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"?
It turns out that some of them have broken your rule. 8^).
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.