Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:41:30 -0400 From: epilogue@allstream.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd@pursued-with.net Subject: Re: Overly brief answers (was Re: Terminal Server) Message-ID: <20040621154130.68a27d2d@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20040621145140.43bab16a.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <006301c456d7$4fdc94f0$7200a8c0@c003179a> <40D6D4DE.10609@zonnet.nl> <20040621094932.430ba76c@localhost> <Pine.OSX.4.58.0406211039440.11214@onorysvfu.chefhrq-jvgu.arg> <20040621145140.43bab16a.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:51:40 -0400 Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote: > Kevin Stevens <freebsd@pursued-with.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:27:44 -0400 > > > Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Nico Meijer <nico.meijer@zonnet.nl> 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. > > > > > > > > <opinion> > > > > 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. > > > > </opinion> > > > > 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 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040621154130.68a27d2d>