Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
[...sniped...] Disrearding any pro's and con's for the discussion: as a 'consumer' of this list, I want to say "thanks for much valuable information I received from this list!" Sure, many questions are somewhat ... well, could have been better worded However, even "wrong" answers gave me a lot of info! (And I hope, there will be the same spirit in future) Thanks to all the helping hands! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Richard Kästner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [OT] Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
Hey Nico, Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Bill! > > I am joyfully amazed at how much one simple "yes" can stir up, other > than at weddings. ;-) You'll have such "stirrings" when you deal with people who actually care about what they do. Folks that don't really care generally don't get stirred up. I take the fact that the FreeBSD community occasionally gets pretty stirred up as a good sign that the community really cares about what it does. > First off: I didn't mean to put OP or anyone else off. Yes, I must > admit, there is a 'smart @$$' element in my answer, which is totally my bad. Cool ... Although it's only my opinion ... I don't particularly think that short answers are always bad, I was just worried that there _appeared_ to be a trend emerging with short, underinformative answers. > Please take note that I am a nice guy, usually overly helpful > (admittedly, not per se on this list, but I have a photograph to > actually prove my point ;-) ) and light hearted. You cannot actually see > my emails are written with a smile on my face. My bad, again. I don't doubt it. > > This is not an answer to the question. > > Yes and no. Yes, remote access. Yes, multiple sessions. No, the hidden > questions I did not answer. With a purpose, I must add. I got that impression, and I prefer to supply a reference to Grog's paper on asking questions (or even ESR's) or directly point out the shortcomings of the question, than to assume that the OP will "get the hint". Again, my opinion, but I've found that, far too often, I didn't present the hint well enough to be gotten ... > > It does not answer the question and does > > not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the > > list archives. > > In a 'smart @$$' way, I was actually trying to get OP to *think* about > his question and hopefully restate it. Taken as it is (i.e. literally), > it was a wrong question with a right answer. > > OP might have asked additionally: "If so, where could I begin to read > and learn for myself?" Basically, "Will you help me to help myself?" To > me, that is on the right track. "Will you hold my hand and do it for > me?" is off limits, if you ask me, but OP was not going for this, obviously. I agree with this. If you care to search the list archives (please don't) you'll find that I've occasionally been guilty of going the other way with this (i.e. I'll feed an obvious Troll for several posts in the hopes that he'll come around) so we're all imperfect. > > It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as > > laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". > > I'll be sure to reread it. I try to reread it every few months, so I don't forget the points it makes. > > It doesn't > > even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. > > You're probably right, although my intentions were just that. I thought they might be. > > You could say that "technically, he didn't ask" but it > > boils down to just being rude. > > I disagree. :-) > > > Asking a question on a high traffic mailing list without showing you've > done some basic homework is rude. Implying/hiding questions instead of > asking them directly is rude. (Hey, I was implying aswell!) > The problem is that most folks don't really understand the nature of this mailing list the first time they post. There are some folks that lurk for quite a while before posting for the first time, but it seems to me that most folks post before they fully understand the nature of the mailing list. > ESR has a well written piece on this very matter. Yup. I'm familiar with both ESR's and Grog's writings on this, and I refer people to them both. > > I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the FreeBSD > > community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as they impart > > some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered in the indicated > > documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. > > What greater good is there than to help someone help themselves? I guess > none. I agree. > So yes, I had done better had I pointed at some docs. I apologize for > not doing that. Thank you. I'm appreciate your contributions to the list, as well as your efforts to improve. I'm sure everyone does. The FreeBSD community needs more folks like you! > Bye... Nico 'my bad' Meijer Hell, we all make mistakes. If that short post is the worse mistake you made today, then you're doing a whole lot better than me! > P.S. Although I *do* feel a greeting at the top of a message makes a > world of difference. :-) Did you notice OP greeted? Did you notice I > did? Can you see me smiling right now? :-) I'll try to remember to do that. Might take me a little while to turn it into a habit. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lis
[OT] Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
Hi Bill! I am joyfully amazed at how much one simple "yes" can stir up, other than at weddings. ;-) First off: I didn't mean to put OP or anyone else off. Yes, I must admit, there is a 'smart @$$' element in my answer, which is totally my bad. Please take note that I am a nice guy, usually overly helpful (admittedly, not per se on this list, but I have a photograph to actually prove my point ;-) ) and light hearted. You cannot actually see my emails are written with a smile on my face. My bad, again. This is not an answer to the question. Yes and no. Yes, remote access. Yes, multiple sessions. No, the hidden questions I did not answer. With a purpose, I must add. It does not answer the question and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the list archives. In a 'smart @$$' way, I was actually trying to get OP to *think* about his question and hopefully restate it. Taken as it is (i.e. literally), it was a wrong question with a right answer. OP might have asked additionally: "If so, where could I begin to read and learn for myself?" Basically, "Will you help me to help myself?" To me, that is on the right track. "Will you hold my hand and do it for me?" is off limits, if you ask me, but OP was not going for this, obviously. It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". I'll be sure to reread it. It doesn't even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. You're probably right, although my intentions were just that. You could say that "technically, he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. I disagree. :-) Asking a question on a high traffic mailing list without showing you've done some basic homework is rude. Implying/hiding questions instead of asking them directly is rude. (Hey, I was implying aswell!) ESR has a well written piece on this very matter. I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the FreeBSD community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as they impart some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered in the indicated documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. What greater good is there than to help someone help themselves? I guess none. So yes, I had done better had I pointed at some docs. I apologize for not doing that. Bye... Nico 'my bad' Meijer P.S. Although I *do* feel a greeting at the top of a message makes a world of difference. :-) Did you notice OP greeted? Did you notice I did? Can you see me smiling right now? :-) P.P.S. No, that was not sarcasm, nor intended harmfully. :-) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:51:40 -0400 Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:44 -0400 > > > Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote > > > > > > access, multiple sessions? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers > > > > to questions. > > > > > > > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's > > > > just one person, of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the > > > > question and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, > > > > nor does it contribute to the list archives. It's also a violation > > > > of the rule against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the > > > > Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't even serve to > > > > educate the OP on how to ask better questins. > > > > With it understood that opinions vary, I disagree with yours in this > > case. The question was posed as a "yes or no" question, with no > > followup. Therefore, "yes" or "no" *precisely* answers it. > > > > For all we know, the OP was merely asking to get a quick determination > > of what the solution set was. I ask such questions of colleagues > > often, and am not interested in the particulars at that point. > > > > > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: > > > > "Can FreeBSD act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same > > > > services as WTS?" Is "yes" your answer to both of them? Because, > > > > if it is, I'd like to know which software allows it to function as > > > > a WTS, since my searches have not found any such software. > > > > The OP didn't say "as", s/he said "like", and then went on to list the > > criteria for "like". > > > > > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the > > > > capability" which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty > > > > obvious. You've totally ignored that question. You could say that > > > > "technically, he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. > > > > > > > > I don't generally answer implicit questions, and I don't believe that > > behavior is rude. Quite the contrary - I believe it is *respectful* to > > grant the assumption that people mean what they say/ask. Good points. Further, I think that we *all* have reasoned assumptions which inform our replies and with which we have to reckon. For my part, I tend to assume that people asking general questions about (or ostensibly specific questions which upon closer examination reveal their limited exposure to / understanding of) FreeBSD are new to the project and would probably benefit from whatever 'additional' information / resources we are able to provide. > > To do otherwise scans to me as "I don't think you know what you're > > saying, so I'm going to assume I know better than you and treat you > > like an idiot.". I don't think that I've ever been insulted by someone offering me additional or superfluous help. E-mail is a fairly impersonal medium. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible. Now, if I bought a box of soap at the laudromat and was given the soap *and* a course on how to put the quarters into the machine... I suppose that ends my 2 cents on this thread.:) > > My favorite example is trying to extract a simple answer on how to > > enable telnetd on a given system, which is guaranteed to produce a > > firestorm of"don't use telnet" responses which have nothing to do with > > the question, overtly assume the OP is an idiot, and show little or no > > understanding about security postures in general or the OPs situation > > in specific. But I digress ;). > > > > In this case, I see nothing wrong with the response. If the OP > > deliberately chose to frame a yes/no question, then s/he has their > > response. If they then want to frame followup questions, there's > > nothing in the response to discourage them from doing so. If we have > > to make an assumption, let's make the assumption that they know how to > > ask a question, rather than the dual assumption that they DON'T know > > how to ask a question, and that we can guess what their intent actually > > was. > > Very valid points. If I were going to look for someone to discuss the > opposite side of the coin on this, I would go to you first, as you've > managed to completely disagree with me in an intelligent fashion! Bravo. > > I don't have many arguments to place in response to your disagreement, so > I'll keep my counter-opinions short: > 1) I prefer to err on the side of too much information than to err on the > side >of not enough. This addresses a lot of your points, but is only a >matter of personal pref
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
Kevin Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:44 -0400 > > Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, > > > > > multiple sessions? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > > > questions. > > > > > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > > > person, of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > > > > > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > > > and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it > > > contribute to the list archives. It's also a violation of the rule > > > against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from > > > FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't even serve to educate the OP on how to > > > ask better questins. > > With it understood that opinions vary, I disagree with yours in this case. > The question was posed as a "yes or no" question, with no followup. > Therefore, "yes" or "no" *precisely* answers it. > > For all we know, the OP was merely asking to get a quick determination of > what the solution set was. I ask such questions of colleagues often, and > am not interested in the particulars at that point. > > > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can > > > FreeBSD act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as > > > WTS?" Is "yes" your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like > > > to know which software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches > > > have not found any such software. > > The OP didn't say "as", s/he said "like", and then went on to list the > criteria for "like". > > > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the > > > capability" which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. > > > You've totally ignored that question. You could say that "technically, > > > he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. > > > > > I don't generally answer implicit questions, and I don't believe that > behavior is rude. Quite the contrary - I believe it is *respectful* to > grant the assumption that people mean what they say/ask. To do otherwise > scans to me as "I don't think you know what you're saying, so I'm going to > assume I know better than you and treat you like an idiot.". > > My favorite example is trying to extract a simple answer on how to enable > telnetd on a given system, which is guaranteed to produce a firestorm of > "don't use telnet" responses which have nothing to do with the question, > overtly assume the OP is an idiot, and show little or no understanding > about security postures in general or the OPs situation in specific. But > I digress ;). > > In this case, I see nothing wrong with the response. If the OP > deliberately chose to frame a yes/no question, then s/he has their > response. If they then want to frame followup questions, there's nothing > in the response to discourage them from doing so. If we have to make an > assumption, let's make the assumption that they know how to ask a > question, rather than the dual assumption that they DON'T know how to ask > a question, and that we can guess what their intent actually was. Very valid points. If I were going to look for someone to discuss the opposite side of the coin on this, I would go to you first, as you've managed to completely disagree with me in an intelligent fashion! Bravo. I don't have many arguments to place in response to your disagreement, so I'll keep my counter-opinions short: 1) I prefer to err on the side of too much information than to err on the side of not enough. This addresses a lot of your points, but is only a matter of personal preference and therefore not anything to do with official list policy or anything. But it explains a lot of our difference of opinion. 2) This "yes" email is only one of several I've seen over the last few weeks. I'm not going to take the time to search them out, but I was starting to wonder if an "air of smart-assedness" was infecting the list, I supposed it's possible that I've been infected with something, though. 3) I posted the original "brief answer" email to promote discussion, and voice my own opinion. I find it refreshing to know that people who are posting short answers don't do it mindlessly. Even if I don't agree with it, at least it has a thought-out reason. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:44 -0400 > Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, > > > > multiple sessions? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > > questions. > > > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > > person, of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > > and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it > > contribute to the list archives. It's also a violation of the rule > > against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from > > FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't even serve to educate the OP on how to > > ask better questins. With it understood that opinions vary, I disagree with yours in this case. The question was posed as a "yes or no" question, with no followup. Therefore, "yes" or "no" *precisely* answers it. For all we know, the OP was merely asking to get a quick determination of what the solution set was. I ask such questions of colleagues often, and am not interested in the particulars at that point. > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can > > FreeBSD act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as > > WTS?" Is "yes" your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like > > to know which software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches > > have not found any such software. The OP didn't say "as", s/he said "like", and then went on to list the criteria for "like". > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the > > capability" which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. > > You've totally ignored that question. You could say that "technically, > > he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. > > I don't generally answer implicit questions, and I don't believe that behavior is rude. Quite the contrary - I believe it is *respectful* to grant the assumption that people mean what they say/ask. To do otherwise scans to me as "I don't think you know what you're saying, so I'm going to assume I know better than you and treat you like an idiot.". My favorite example is trying to extract a simple answer on how to enable telnetd on a given system, which is guaranteed to produce a firestorm of "don't use telnet" responses which have nothing to do with the question, overtly assume the OP is an idiot, and show little or no understanding about security postures in general or the OPs situation in specific. But I digress ;). In this case, I see nothing wrong with the response. If the OP deliberately chose to frame a yes/no question, then s/he has their response. If they then want to frame followup questions, there's nothing in the response to discourage them from doing so. If we have to make an assumption, let's make the assumption that they know how to ask a question, rather than the dual assumption that they DON'T know how to ask a question, and that we can guess what their intent actually was. KeS ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
> > > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > > > questions. > > > > > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > > > person, > > > of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > > > > > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > > > and does > > > not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the > > > list archives. It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as > > > laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't > > > even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. > > > > on the issue of the _short_ answer; In the case of this question, it is > > probably obvious that the poster needed more useful information - at least > > a pointer to some info. Then, it looks bad to just give a smart alec yes > > or whatever other less than useful reply. > > I'm wondering if these short "yes" answers aren't all smart-alec, but some of > them are possibly an attempt to answer before anyone else. > > I know, I've seen a question I could answer, made sure it hasn't already been > answered (to avoid unnecessary list traffic) then crafted a carefully worded, > helpful answer, only to find 5 others appear at the same time as mine. Kind > of makes one feel like he's wasting his time. But it's not an excuse to send > terse, essentally useless answers. Yes, that has happened to me sometimes and unfortunately (fortunately for the questioner) some of the other responses were significantly better than mine. Oh well. Anyway, I guess, I don't mind seeing several responses to a question, even if they are essentially the same. First, they tend to each have a little bit different tack and give different/additional referrences. Plus, having several people independantly agree adds a bit of confidence. Something missing in the typical newbies world. That is a little different than strictly me too replies. > > But, some of these questions - is FreeBSD really free, etc get frustrating > > because it is obvious that the poster didn't even read the first page of > > the web site let alone try and look for an answer. So, a few of the > > posted questions deserve a mere yes or no answer. > > I disagree, as Grog's document clearly states: "if you can't think of anything > nice to say, don't say anything at all" and I consider that list policy. I agree with that. I take the time at least to type out the suggestion to check the web page, or whatever rather than just say yes or no. But, I can sympathize with the person who does give the smart alec answer. > I understand your frustration. As someone who's donated a bit to the doc > project, and can only _imagine_ how much effort others have put in to the > high-quality docs that FreeBSD has, I get annoyed when people won't read it > as well. But I just suck it up and either post a pointer to the docs, or > delete it without answering. A prophet goes without honor in his homeor something like that. Yup. I also sympathize with the newbie - more like empathize with the newbie. A person tends to start from nowhere and doesn't even have a clue about what is a good question let alone what to do about it. Seeing all the new language and jargon and even worse, initials that AFAIK are commonly used in the discussions and even the documentation can make the situation even worse. There are no stupid questions. (But, there are lazy ones) jerry > > > - this from someone who could more often be accused of giving excessively > > long answers to even simple questions... > > > > jerry > > > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, multiple > > > > sessions? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > > questions. > > > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > > person, > > of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > > and does > > not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the > > list archives. It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as > > laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't > > even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. > > on the issue of the _short_ answer; In the case of this question, it is > probably obvious that the poster needed more useful information - at least > a pointer to some info. Then, it looks bad to just give a smart alec yes > or whatever other less than useful reply. I'm wondering if these short "yes" answers aren't all smart-alec, but some of them are possibly an attempt to answer before anyone else. I know, I've seen a question I could answer, made sure it hasn't already been answered (to avoid unnecessary list traffic) then crafted a carefully worded, helpful answer, only to find 5 others appear at the same time as mine. Kind of makes one feel like he's wasting his time. But it's not an excuse to send terse, essentally useless answers. > But, some of these questions - is FreeBSD really free, etc get frustrating > because it is obvious that the poster didn't even read the first page of > the web site let alone try and look for an answer. So, a few of the > posted questions deserve a mere yes or no answer. I disagree, as Grog's document clearly states: "if you can't think of anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" and I consider that list policy. I understand your frustration. As someone who's donated a bit to the doc project, and can only _imagine_ how much effort others have put in to the high-quality docs that FreeBSD has, I get annoyed when people won't read it as well. But I just suck it up and either post a pointer to the docs, or delete it without answering. > - this from someone who could more often be accused of giving excessively > long answers to even simple questions... > > jerry > > > > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can FreeBSD > > act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as WTS?" Is "yes" > > your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like to know which > > software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches have not found any > > such software. > > > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the capability" > > which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. You've totally > > ignored that question. You could say that "technically, he didn't ask" but it > > boils down to just being rude. > > > > > > I'm curious as to whether this is only my opinion, or if others feel the same > > way. I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the FreeBSD > > community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as they impart > > some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered in the indicated > > documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. > > > > I do feel that, althought Grog's document doesn't specifically chastise these > > types of answers, that they are _not_ in the "spirit" of that document, and do > > not serve the purpose of this mailing list. > > > > -- > > Bill Moran > > Potential Technologies > > http://www.potentialtech.com > > ___ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
> > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, multiple > > > sessions? > > > > Yes. > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > questions. > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > person, > of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > and does > not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the > list archives. It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as > laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't > even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. on the issue of the _short_ answer; In the case of this question, it is probably obvious that the poster needed more useful information - at least a pointer to some info. Then, it looks bad to just give a smart alec yes or whatever other less than useful reply. But, some of these questions - is FreeBSD really free, etc get frustrating because it is obvious that the poster didn't even read the first page of the web site let alone try and look for an answer. So, a few of the posted questions deserve a mere yes or no answer. - this from someone who could more often be accused of giving excessively long answers to even simple questions... jerry > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can FreeBSD > act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as WTS?" Is "yes" > your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like to know which > software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches have not found any > such software. > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the capability" > which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. You've totally > ignored that question. You could say that "technically, he didn't ask" but it > boils down to just being rude. > > > I'm curious as to whether this is only my opinion, or if others feel the same > way. I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the FreeBSD > community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as they impart > some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered in the indicated > documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. > > I do feel that, althought Grog's document doesn't specifically chastise these > types of answers, that they are _not_ in the "spirit" of that document, and do > not serve the purpose of this mailing list. > > -- > Bill Moran > Potential Technologies > http://www.potentialtech.com > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
> I'm curious as to whether this is only my opinion, or if others feel the > same > way. I hope this thread in no way leads to a flame war, but I think this is a good discussion. In no way would I like to bash or flame anyone, but users who receive responses like this (albeit in this particular question, 'yes' was technically a proper answer), I believe that the user (particularily newbs) could quickly become very frustrated and pushed away as they may see it as a quick and dirty response and feel their question in some way was 'silly'. Note that I believe that the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked, but even those questions that are trivial to some of us deserve some insight. We must look beyond our own knowledge and remember what it was like for us when we first began the FBSD journey and realize that single word responses are certainly not going to help. Personally when I respond to a question, I try to put myself in the shoes of the poster, and try to at least give a little insight or direction to the question as if I asked it myself. Although as someone has already said, these replies are likely attempts to quickly help the user, they often mislead and discourage them instead. It's great that everyone likes to help, but we all should remember the importance that substance is key to aiding each other. Just my .02. No offence intended, and no one is perfect, we can only try our best to help. sb ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:44 -0400 Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, > > > multiple sessions? > > > > Yes. > > I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to > questions. > > I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one > person, of if multiple folks have picked up on it. > > > This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question > and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it > contribute to the list archives. It's also a violation of the rule > against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from > FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't even serve to educate the OP on how to > ask better questins. > > First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can > FreeBSD act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as > WTS?" Is "yes" your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like > to know which software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches > have not found any such software. > > This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the > capability" which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. > You've totally ignored that question. You could say that "technically, > he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. > > > I'm curious as to whether this is only my opinion, or if others feel the > same way. at the risk of creating a double standard, 'me too'. ;) though they aren't particularly helpful answers, i don't believe that being curt is always the intention. rather, i think that, in their eagerness to help 'first', some posters may simply be 'forgetting' to provide substantive assistance to newcomers and other interested parties. thanks for taking the time to remind everyone about this, bill. wishful thinkingly yours, epi > I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the > FreeBSD community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as > they impart some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered > in the indicated documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. > > I do feel that, althought Grog's document doesn't specifically chastise > these types of answers, that they are _not_ in the "spirit" of that > document, and do not serve the purpose of this mailing list. > > -- > Bill Moran > Potential Technologies > http://www.potentialtech.com > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server)
Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > Can FreeBSD act like Windows Terminal Server, i.e. remote access, multiple > > sessions? > > Yes. I wanted to start a brief discussion about these kinds of answers to questions. I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. I don't know if it's just one person, of if multiple folks have picked up on it. This is not an answer to the question. It does not answer the question and does not contribute to the OPs knowledge of FreeBSD, nor does it contribute to the list archives. It's also a violation of the rule against "me too" answers as laid out in "How to Get the Best Results from FreeBSD-Questions". It doesn't even serve to educate the OP on how to ask better questins. First off, there are actually two questions hidden in the post: "Can FreeBSD act as a WTS?", and "can FreeBSD provide the same services as WTS?" Is "yes" your answer to both of them? Because, if it is, I'd like to know which software allows it to function as a WTS, since my searches have not found any such software. This leads to the implied question of "what software provides the capability" which (despite not being voice, directly) is pretty obvious. You've totally ignored that question. You could say that "technically, he didn't ask" but it boils down to just being rude. I'm curious as to whether this is only my opinion, or if others feel the same way. I don't think answers like this reflect well on FreeBSD or the FreeBSD community. Short answers like "see 'man foo'" are appropriate, as they impart some knowledge and tell the OP that his question is answered in the indicated documentation, but this doesn't follow that template. I do feel that, althought Grog's document doesn't specifically chastise these types of answers, that they are _not_ in the "spirit" of that document, and do not serve the purpose of this mailing list. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
