Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Soren Andersen: > ... It amazes me that some folks here are so addicted to > reacting angrily and acting like superior, stuffy old > aunts waggling their fingers at disobedient "children", > that they cannot see what a pointless rut they are in. Such psychobabble. Go to your room. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Soren Andersen wrote: > This is going to be my one and only engagement this week in conversing with >individuals who have > been trained in how they think by TV shows. No need to read further. ^ indicates that this post is a troll. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
This is going to be my one and only engagement this week in conversing with individuals who have been trained in how they think by TV shows. On 18 Jan 2002 at 13:39, twidlar wrote: > Trying to get them to reverse their decision by trying to make them feel > guilty or suggesting they need therapy is pretty funny. It is little kid > stuff. I am glad you were amused. Unfortunately for your no-doubt fragile sense of self-esteem, it may look to others like the object of humor is otherwise than you apparently think it is, "twidlar". In one brief message, your reply has managed to mistate the facts concerning: - that there was some "judgement" concerning my proposal at the time I offered my replies. I read no such thing: there was no "judgement", instead there was just a bit of knee-jerk reacting and rejecting out of hand (and one supportive message confirming that the issue I had was shared by others). There was no discussion of the *merits* of the suggestion (other than that "setup doesn't do that" -- which is a defeatist and negative non-example of genuine discussion, to which I would reply "so if setup doesn't/cannot do that, then let's discuss how can it get accomplished by another means?"). - that I suggested that someone needed "therapy" in the sense in which you apparently mean to use the phrase -- as perjorative and cynical and cliched, as a way of personally attacking people. What exactly is it that is *wrong* with therapy, anyway? - I wrote nothing that indicates I believe "guilt" to be a useful or valid concept. "Guilt" is for Judeo- Christian-Moslem believers and those unfortunates who don't think they are, but who have nevertheless not been able to disentangle their inner world processes from lifetime immersion in the ways of thinking that those cultures have become. I am not of that school of philosophy. > Cygwin is an excellent product because the people developing are > competent, focused, use their time well, have good technical judgement, > understand their users and set their priorities well. I trust their > judgement on your "proposal". Good, then I wonder where the motivation for writing your message comes from? Why would you need to write it if nothing you value is threatened? Maybe you understood on a level you cannot consciously acknowledge, my words concerning pervasive personal anger and unhappiness? Well, it would just be a speculation on my part to suggest any such a thing about you. Not that the folks who have been replying negatively to my messages haven't largely been doing exactly that: with absolutely NO idea who I am they rip right ahead with abundant characterizations and critiques that base themselves on thoughtless assumptions about me. It's my intent not to follow their example, however. I have been reading this List for a long time -- along with many others. I believe that if one added up all the time I've observed some folks spend "scolding" others for speaking up, as you have just spent here, to me -- and instead calculated what could be accomplished if those individuals like you doing the scolding put that time to productive use (or even -- gasp -- answering the question!), we could probably have seen the completion of a `mach' kernal come out of it (for instance). It amazes me that some folks here are so addicted to reacting angrily and acting like superior, stuffy old aunts waggling their fingers at disobedient "children", that they cannot see what a pointless rut they are in. Soren Andersen -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The solution is basically what any twelve year old would provide with if > you described problem to them. And the twelve year old's solution would > be the correct one -- setup.exe should produce /usr/info/dir. And we have a solution - for package creators - in http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents - which states "If you have any 'info' documention in your package, run install-info as part of your post-install script" Thats what got me annoyed. The solution has been discussed, put into policy and should not affect any newbies ever again. This is a better solution than setup.exe special casing info files, because as described here http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html#postinstall packages can do any special case installation that make install might do - without requiring users to grab a new setup.exe to get the correct behaviour. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:39:35PM -0500, twidlar wrote: >Soren Andersen: >> I am really, really convinced that if someone finds the constructive >> proposal I sent in "infuriating", it is entirely their own (fairly >> important) personal problem, as in: a problem of a spiritual nature (in >> that it pertains to internal states of being, predispositions, and general >> unhappiness) ... > >Cygwin is an excellent product because the people developing are >competent, focused, use their time well, have good technical judgement, >understand their users and set their priorities well. I trust their >judgement on your "proposal". > >Trying to get them to reverse their decision by trying to make them >feel guilty or suggesting they need therapy is pretty funny. It is >little kid stuff. Thanks for the vote of confidence but there is no reversal of anything, required here. Everything in Soren's email had already been discussed. There was nothing breathtakingly original in his "proposal". The solution is basically what any twelve year old would provide with if you described problem to them. And the twelve year old's solution would be the correct one -- setup.exe should produce /usr/info/dir. Every setup.exe developer agrees that this is something that needs to be done. It's on the list of things to do. Relaying that information (or where to find that information) should have been the end of the discussion but, of course, it wasn't. It seemed like a simple solution was being put forth as if it was in some way revolutionary. Soren's email took 80 lines to essentially say: "setup.exe should produce /usr/info/dir files." The additional 79 lines and subsequent messages seemed to be basically an attempt at making himself the champion of the obvious for newbies. It's not at all unusual for a "newbie" to provide a simple solution without trying to research available resources. No matter how we try to correct this behavior, people will always assume that they are the only people to have ever come up with a solution and will send a knee jerk message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For example, how many people have suggested that we should have an "All" option on setup.exe? A LOT. And, where do you think the current setup.exe behavior came from? It came from user complaints about the fact that setup.exe used to download everything. Regardless, after the first message or two about the lack of "All", this issue became the subject of much discussion in [EMAIL PROTECTED] You could assume that since setup.exe has had this problem for a couple of months, that no one is working on it. Or, you could assume that since this is a volunteer project, we can't guarantee that anything will be fixed quickly. A newbie might assume the former but should be easily educated in the latter. So, their cluelessness should be correctable. It is somewhat unusual for a "newbie" to offer such a spirited defense of their own cluelessness. The defense, apparently, is that "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist". It is puzzling why someone who admits to being absent from cygwin discussions would ever assume that their ignorance was anything more than simple lack of information but I guess this adds some entertainment value to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that there is a valid point somewhere in Soren's message although he doesn't actually seem aware of it. Probably, in the future, when someone mentions RTFM, they should also include something like: "setup.exe should produce /usr/info/dir files but it doesn't currently. To use info files, please refer to the following: http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#SEC63 " Hmm. Oddly enough, it took me about five seconds to find this info in the FAQ. Just looked for "info". I guess that's because I'm not a newbie... cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Soren Andersen: > I am really, really convinced that if someone finds the constructive > proposal I sent in "infuriating", it is entirely their own (fairly > important) personal problem, as in: a problem of a spiritual nature (in > that it pertains to internal states of being, predispositions, and general > unhappiness) ... Cygwin is an excellent product because the people developing are competent, focused, use their time well, have good technical judgement, understand their users and set their priorities well. I trust their judgement on your "proposal". Trying to get them to reverse their decision by trying to make them feel guilty or suggesting they need therapy is pretty funny. It is little kid stuff. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- Original Message - From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Should setup.exe *refuse* to install a file called "/usr/info/dir" -- > just to keep us safe? Or is that setting a bad precedent? [Or maybe > upset can "lint" the packages on sourceware, and refuse to add > foo-1.2.tar.gz to setup.ini if it contains a proscribed file like > /usr/info/dir] On my personal TODO list is a command line unix package linter. Setup.exe may some mechanism to manage state data - /etc/foo.cfg, /usr/info/dir etc, but I think a simpl solution to catch 99% of cases is the package linter. And yes, it should refuse to add the package, and email the maintainer (IMO). Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
At 07:40 PM 1/17/2002, Soren Andersen wrote: >On 16 Jan 2002 at 15:44, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > > > It just all seems a little pointless to me but maybe I'm missing > > something. While I'm sure that's not your intent to aggravate the hard > > working contributors on this list, it's important to consider posts of this > > nature with a critical eye before posting. No sense infuriating those who > > have worked so long and so hard to provide us all with what we have now. > >I am really, really convinced that if someone finds the constructive >proposal I sent in "infuriating", it is entirely their own (fairly >important) personal problem, as in: a problem of a spiritual nature (in >that it pertains to internal states of being, predispositions, and general >unhappiness); and I have found it most in life necessary to strictly >distinguish between what I rightly must own (acknowledge) in this life vs. >what I must allow others to own, which is rightly their [property, issue, >attachment, pain]. Perhaps. But you, by your own admission, have been away from the Cygwin list for some time. If you've been with the list all along or if you spent time reviewing the list archives before posting, you would see that many on this list take a dim view of those who expose great solutions and then expect others to implement them. It doesn't matter whether you believe someone's distaste for this situation is prompted by unhappiness within them or forced on them from the outside. The point is, folks here that do the work don't need others to come along and map out an implementation plan followed by the resounding statement that someone else will need to implement it because the poster has no time/isn't capable enough/whatever. It's a pattern that has been repeated many times on this list. And even if you believe that unhappiness comes from the fires that burn within, would you want to be accused of anything that fed those flames? The package contributors and Cygwin maintainers are busy working on improving stuff in areas you haven't even thought of yet. If the area you take the time and effort to formulate a plan for is important enough to you, you'll pitch in to help make it happen. If not, you have the right to post it to this list, just like anyone else. Like all those other posts, it will go into the archives and perhaps some day get implemented by someone else, but not likely. If this is what you must do to make yourself happy, then I guess you'll need to keep doing it. I just wanted to point out that it behooves you to work with and in the Cygwin community if you'd like things of yours to get done. Like I said, this is a *volunteer* effort. Anyone can volunteer. And things work best if people *do* volunteer help bring their ideas to fruition when they have them. Generally speaking, no one is more interested in your cause than you. Again, if you read through the email archives, you'll find this sentiment tied up in the phrase "scratching an itch." If you get an itch, scratch it. If you don't have an itch, don't bug others with long diatribes exposing the dire state of things and how they should be remedied. It's counter-productive. If it's not a big enough deal to you that you want to help with the solution to the terrible blight you expose, why post in the first place? You really can't force your itch on someone else. It's either there or it's not. People are far more likely to join your cause though if you're chipping in to help fix it. Also worth noting is the fact that your suggestion from your original post relates to the area of user documentation. The email archives is burgeoning with posts about the dire needs in this area. Very few (I think I can count on 1 hand) ever volunteer for this area. I don't believe a single poster, bolding proclaiming immediate attention is needed in this area, has ever stepped forward to help right the wrong he or she was so quick to point out (please forgive me if you're reading this and you actually are helping out in this area after posting about a problem here... Send me some email and I'll thank you personally and profusely for all your efforts! :-) ) While this list isn't about discouraging ideas, it is about encouraging ideas that lead people to produce the fruits of those ideas. >To put not too fine a point on it, I ask this: if someone is so *consumed* >with Cygwin that the devil of Anger emerges in their life on the slightest >excuse or provocation, is that a kind of self-sacrifice that is really >worth what is being achieved? Wouldn't taking a therapeutic break, at >least, be in order? I worry that folks who think the answer is 'yes' are >making the large and difficult-to-discern philosophical error of >undervaluing their own happiness and what it means to in relation to the >macrocosm. I'm going to assume you mistyped here, because I think you contradicted yourself. In any ca
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- Original Message - From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .. > their expression). I have gone against my own preferences in design, to situation... Oops! Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- Original Message - From: "Soren Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 17 Jan 2002 at 7:54, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > I'm going to ignore your newbie-style clueslessness in the body of your > > email, on the assumption that you will follow this advice. > > I wish you wouldn't, but its up to you. You would rather I waste time replying to a re-hash of discussion carried out already, and implemented into policy for cygwin? > You are missing the whole point. *NO*. You missed the point. You are *assuming* things about setup, and the cygwin packages that *are not true*. The rational for your goals is fine. Let me give you an example: If you posted to this list, that having a unix compataiblity layer would be a great idea, and it's a shame that no-one has written one, what sort of response would you expect? > I submit that it is more and more self-evident that you > (and probably not you alone) *cannot* shift cognitive gears enough to > imagine what the newbie experience of cygwin-setup is, and clearly don't > see any need to try to do so. I don't know where this idea came from. Time and again we have altered setup, based on feedback from *newbies* (who alone can truely understand their expression). I have gone against my own preferences in design, to accomodate these needs. The evidence IS ON THE CYGWIN-APPS LIST!. > Sometimes, no matter how stubbornly one might wish that the behavior (and I > mean primarily the internal intellectual behavior: how people think [& > feel]) of people would fit one's preconceived grid of assumptions and > preferences, it just doesn't. The overly big and vague general phrase > widely used to refer to this, in our culture, is "human nature." Not trying > to take human nature into account at all is a pitfall for those who have > desires to accomplish anything at all in the world. Are you trying to imply that the cygwin developers/cygwin setup developers don't take human nature into account? > I myself am clumsy with words and often make mistakes that strike onlookers > as lack of tact or diplomacy, but I submit that I at least know about the > underlying and fundamental importance of human nature and at least struggle > continuously with gaining a keener understanding of what it is. I submit that you are spending too little time understanding what effort has been put in, and therefore that your submissions are in the wrong context to be appreciated by *any* contributor to the things you wish to affect. > I also know that there may be a very considerable investment of a personal > nature in `setup' as it has become what what it is right now. What would be > unfortunate (although certainly I can live with it, personally) would be if > that personal investment made by developers of Cygwin caused a general > intractable deafness to user feedback which is intended constructively. Y'a know, you're claiming I'm deaf, but you appear blind. Without the requisite information and context (not for a newbie, but for a contributor) your suggestions will be less effective, and recieve less attention than you may feel their effort is due. Responding with insults does not, and will not correct the simple fact that you need more information, and you have been told how to get it. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
On 16 Jan 2002 at 15:44, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > It just all seems a little pointless to me but maybe I'm missing > something. While I'm sure that's not your intent to aggravate the hard > working contributors on this list, it's important to consider posts of this > nature with a critical eye before posting. No sense infuriating those who > have worked so long and so hard to provide us all with what we have now. I am really, really convinced that if someone finds the constructive proposal I sent in "infuriating", it is entirely their own (fairly important) personal problem, as in: a problem of a spiritual nature (in that it pertains to internal states of being, predispositions, and general unhappiness); and I have found it most in life necessary to strictly distinguish between what I rightly must own (acknowledge) in this life vs. what I must allow others to own, which is rightly their [property, issue, attachment, pain]. To put not too fine a point on it, I ask this: if someone is so *consumed* with Cygwin that the devil of Anger emerges in their life on the slightest excuse or provocation, is that a kind of self-sacrifice that is really worth what is being achieved? Wouldn't taking a therapeutic break, at least, be in order? I worry that folks who think the answer is 'yes' are making the large and difficult-to-discern philosophical error of undervaluing their own happiness and what it means to in relation to the macrocosm. Everyone's life matters, inherently. We are mutually interdependent on one another in inconceivably subtle and co-extensive ways, far beyond the prosaic "one hand washes the other" kind of intentional, strategic mutual support between co-workers. Life is bigger and far more incomprehensible than that small intellectual notion, and so is our ultimate interdependence. Happiness, Soren Andersen -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
On 17 Jan 2002 at 7:54, Robert Collins wrote: > I'm going to ignore your newbie-style clueslessness in the body of your > email, on the assumption that you will follow this advice. I wish you wouldn't, but its up to you. You are missing the whole point. A newbie isn't going to go and subscribe to cygwin-apps: wouldn't be encouraged to (based on what she reads on the "way in") and wouldn't foresee the need to. I am offering (this whole group) a (slightly synthesized) newbie viewpoint on how Cygwin (setup) looks to a newbie. I submit that it is more and more self-evident that you (and probably not you alone) *cannot* shift cognitive gears enough to imagine what the newbie experience of cygwin-setup is, and clearly don't see any need to try to do so. I believe that by composing the messages I have, I may be representing (even if in a very imperfect and partial way) what untold numbers of other readers might have *thought* of posting here, but never did. Sometimes, no matter how stubbornly one might wish that the behavior (and I mean primarily the internal intellectual behavior: how people think [& feel]) of people would fit one's preconceived grid of assumptions and preferences, it just doesn't. The overly big and vague general phrase widely used to refer to this, in our culture, is "human nature." Not trying to take human nature into account at all is a pitfall for those who have desires to accomplish anything at all in the world. I myself am clumsy with words and often make mistakes that strike onlookers as lack of tact or diplomacy, but I submit that I at least know about the underlying and fundamental importance of human nature and at least struggle continuously with gaining a keener understanding of what it is. I also know that there may be a very considerable investment of a personal nature in `setup' as it has become what what it is right now. What would be unfortunate (although certainly I can live with it, personally) would be if that personal investment made by developers of Cygwin caused a general intractable deafness to user feedback which is intended constructively. Best regards, Soren Andersen -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Joshua Franklin wrote:
>>OK, I learned a few valuable lessons in the
>>couple of days last month it took me to
>>clue into install-info ("dir is a file?"), and
>>maybe this is more of a "pons asinorum" than
>>an "Instructions for opening are on the inside"
>>situation.
>>
>>That being said, I really would have appreciated
>>a hint about where the documentation lives and
>>how to get at it.
>>
>>Thanks, John
>>
>>
>
> I don't think this is really a documentation issue.
> The real problem in this case is that some package
> is messed up (some package is installing its own
> 'dir' file, overwriting the old one, instead of
> installing the info files in a script).
> You can just look at the package lists in
> /etc/setup/ and figure out that the offending package
> seems to be...
>
> $ grep info/dir *
> tetex-beta.lst:usr/info/dir
>
> tetex-beta!
> This package needs to be fixed to do the right thing.
> And, I believe, a new tetex package is in the works.
Well, yeah -- another problem is the other packages that copy info files
into /usr/info but *don't* have a postinstall script to add them to
/usr/info/dir. But, that will be fixed in time, as packages are updated.
One thing that worries me is the appearance of a *new* misbehaving
package -- it's all well and good to say "be careful, maintainers" but
mistakes DO happen. THIS mistake can affect all other packages'
info-installations; it's more serious that "new wget package overwrites
/etc/wgetrc" -- which only affects wget.
Should setup.exe *refuse* to install a file called "/usr/info/dir" --
just to keep us safe? Or is that setting a bad precedent? [Or maybe
upset can "lint" the packages on sourceware, and refuse to add
foo-1.2.tar.gz to setup.ini if it contains a proscribed file like
/usr/info/dir]
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
> OK, I learned a few valuable lessons in the
> couple of days last month it took me to
> clue into install-info ("dir is a file?"), and
> maybe this is more of a "pons asinorum" than
> an "Instructions for opening are on the inside"
> situation.
>
> That being said, I really would have appreciated
> a hint about where the documentation lives and
> how to get at it.
>
> Thanks, John
>
I don't think this is really a documentation issue.
The real problem in this case is that some package
is messed up (some package is installing its own
'dir' file, overwriting the old one, instead of
installing the info files in a script).
You can just look at the package lists in
/etc/setup/ and figure out that the offending package
seems to be...
$ grep info/dir *
tetex-beta.lst:usr/info/dir
tetex-beta!
This package needs to be fixed to do the right thing.
And, I believe, a new tetex package is in the works.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Leaving aside whether this is the right forum
to bring up this issue, I'll vote for Soren's
suggestion.
OK, I learned a few valuable lessons in the
couple of days last month it took me to
clue into install-info ("dir is a file?"), and
maybe this is more of a "pons asinorum" than
an "Instructions for opening are on the inside"
situation.
That being said, I really would have appreciated
a hint about where the documentation lives and
how to get at it.
Thanks, John
-Original Message-
From: Soren Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 4:17 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Hello,
When I try to use `info blah' on my Cygwin system I get the error
info: dir: No such file or directory
<---cut>
Couldn't this script [to run install-info], or something like it, be made a
part of Cygwin and
run each time a setup installation procedure is completed? Couldn't the
user AT LEAST be prompted to choose whether to run it, or advised that he
should?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
Soren, I suggest you subscribe to cygwin-apps, and read the recent archives (say the last 4 months), and setup.html, before commenting on what setup.exe does and doesn't do. I'm going to ignore your newbie-style clueslessness in the body of your email, on the assumption that you will follow this advice. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
At 03:17 PM 1/16/2002, Soren Andersen wrote: >Hello, > >When I try to use `info blah' on my Cygwin system I get the error >info: dir: No such file or directory > >Yes, this in in the FAQ (however, alternatively, not findable by any of 5 >permutations of searches I ran on the List archives, just as an aside): So what would you do to make such searches more productive? . . . . . . That's my suggested addition (for today) to whatever it is that `setup' >does. I am not currently involved in hacking on `setup' so I won't be >contributing any patches on this issue; it will have to fall to someone >else to (maybe) implement this, for the time being (other priorities are >just unrefusable for me at present). Thanks for your attention. Great but you realize that just because you weren't able to find relevant discussion of this topic in the archives that there hasn't been any, right? In case you're still wondering, there has been a discussion of this. Solutions have been proposed too. We're not lacking those (to just about any problem that gets raised on this list). Although I appreciate a thoughtful proposal of a solution as much as the next guy, I think folks on this list would prefer someone to follow through on a proposal. If you're just going to propose and leave it for someone else to implement your proposal, what's the motivation (for you proposing the solution and others who read it)? Unless your proposal is so compelling that it moves someone else (but for some reason not you), it's just more fodder for the email archives (that folks may or may not ever review). I mean, you do realize that Cygwin is an entirely volunteer-run effort right? Don't you think it might be a little insulting to volunteers, who are doing allot of hard (sometimes grunt) work and who probably have their own ideas about this subject and others, to have you suggest this and then flatly state that you have no intention of pursuing this issue? I mean, why should someone else be more interested in this issue than you? And if they are, why should they implement your proposal and not their own? And if no one is going to implement your proposal, why send it to the list? It just all seems a little pointless to me but maybe I'm missing something. While I'm sure that's not your intent to aggravate the hard working contributors on this list, it's important to consider posts of this nature with a critical eye before posting. No sense infuriating those who have worked so long and so hard to provide us all with what we have now. Food for thought. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
