"Lee Trotter" <[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.
I don't think you're being fair. Even people who "rudely" tell someone
to read the FAQ or a man page are being helpful. Truly unhelpful
people don't reply at all, even curtly.
>Your typical answer to a
>question is man this or man that. And yes I understand that there are people
>that don't read the docs,
And the person who started this thread is clearly one of them. After
two days of posting the newbiest of queries, someone finally got fed
up and told him to do his homework.
>but this list is typical of linux
WARNING: generalizations ahead...
>users/administrators in that you reply in a very curt sort, "I don't have
>the time for you because you are not as smart as me" way.
How about "I don't have the time to read the FAQ and man pages for
every newbie and hold their hand throughout their qmail initiation"?
Well, jeeze, is it reasonable to expect qmail experts to spend lots of
unpaid time on people who can't be bothered to read the docs?
>I have seen this a
>number of times on here. Part of the problem with linux is it's very cryptic
>documentation. As such users need to relay on other more experienced people.
"Life with qmail" is cryptic? And, of course, qmail <> Linux.
>I am also on an IIS list and not once has someone been put down for not
>searching the archives or reading one of the manuals, which are not nearly
>as cryptic as the liunx/qmail documentation.
That list is obviously more tolerant of lazy, clueless newbies. We're
not, and we're PROUD of it. We expect more from our newbies. We help
those who at least try to help themselves first.
>Frankly I don't have the time
>to search though hundreds of emails in the archive, so I'll ask my question.
Read that sentence and tell me it's not offensively arrogant. *You*
don't have the time to pop a couple terms into the archive search
engine and see if your question has already been answered? But you
expect *us* to waste our time answering you?
BZZT! Thanks for playing.
>Hopefully someone will take time out of his or her busy day to answer it and
>I will respond when there is a question I can answer, if I can't answer a
>question I don't respond. I feel that qmail is a superior email system but I
>have ripped out hair by the frustration felt trying to get it up and
>running, yet I can walk into a bookstore and find 30 different books on
>sendmail and exchange. Rather then chastise people for asking questions you
>should be happy they are showing an interest in one of the non-mainstream
>products and not just taking the easy way out.
We're tickled pink when newbies join the qmail fold, unless they're
too lazy to read the damned FAQ.
> I have no doubt that this will cause a number of "flames" but for those
>of you that do it only confirms what I said before.
No, what it confirms is that we vehemently disagree with you.
-Dave
