> then you are at a loss. we were all younger and less all-knowing once > upon a time. the book from which i learned unix was named laura > freedman, as there were no printed ones, other than man pages, at the > time. if she was as unhelpful as some folk here, i might not be > bothering you today. of course, this might be a feature, not a bug. This is a terrible analogy but:
Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not. Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand that the manufacturer fix things that don't work because you didn't read the manual? Of course not. Both of these questions were easily answered by the simplest of Google searches. If you don't ask people to make even a cursory attempt at finding the answer for themselves then you are not helping them and you are inviting a wholesale loss in content quality. > >> NANOG is for large network oeprators > you're right. that text should be changed, cause it just ain't true any > more. in fact, i don't remember when it was true. jhawk was wishing. Then I hope it does get changed. >> Cisco is a commonly used platform and anyone who asks a question about >> Cisco is told to go ask on a Cisco list. > as did another poster, we generally try to actually answer the question > as well as pointing to where there is more domain-specific info. This same person asked another question that was easily answered by a bit of searching and was far beneath the level I think this list should be operating at. >> If you want NANOG to become the go to list for people who don't >> understand basic networking then I will happily go home. > i think it's for all of us. I've never heard anyone say that about NANOG. This was always a list for people discussing issues relevant to large networks. Issues like the size of the DFZ and the problems with route churn versus addresses exhaustion. If, however, that is no longer how the MLC sees the list then I will shut up. >> Funny- my first response was polite > and had zero operational content It was my hope that by posting my response to the list we could avoid having lots of people answer. Alas that seems to have failed. If you disagreed with my post it would have been incredibly easy to say "I disagree- I think this is a relevant topic and here's some good resources for Ann to check out." Instead, your response also included no technical content AND was sarcastic. If I was wrong about what's now considered relevant on the NANOG list then I apologize. -Don _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
