"Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have been watching this list for a few weeks now. And the people
> > on here are the most un-helpful people I have seen. Your typical
> > answer to a question is man this or man that.
>
> When I first signed up to this list, I wondered why people didn't just
> give answers, then I realized: ... Simply shoveling out information
> does a disservice to the asker, the responder, the list member, and
> the world at large ...
Amen. And very well put.
(When I first signed up, back in '96, I was completely clueless about email
and asked utterly inane questions, which were mercifully ignored. The
experience was quite embarrassing, but ultimately was very helpful.)
> > "I don't have the time for you because you are not as smart as me"
>
> That attitude isn't at all typical of linux administrators, it's typical
> of a few high-profile Unix programmers (who shall remain nameless).
If you mean Dan, I beg to differ. Dan ignores most stupid questions,
patiently answers a few, and usually bites hard only after explaining
something and being contradicted. In this respect he's just like any
Math professor/competent mathematician I've ever known--he reserves his
scorn for people who've had a chance to RTFM but refuse and then continue
to bother him.
> Then, the "Ooh, I want to be cool like {Insert High-Profile Name}"
> people try to emulate it.
I'm certainly an ``Ooh, I want to be as knowledgable and competent as Dan''
person. Many of us are. And maybe some of Dan's style rubs off, as well as
some of his knowledge. But mostly people hate to answer the same question
over and over; your previous excellent explanation nailed it.
Len.
--
Unfortunately, spammers deliberately subvert priority mechanisms,
making their ``bad'' messages indistinguishable from ``good''
messages.
-- Dan Bernstein, author of qmail
