From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov  6 23:51:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA16738
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:51:30 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA16731
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:51:27 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA15160; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:51:18 -0800 (PST)
To: dk+@ua.net
cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: NetAtalk doesn't work!? take two 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Nov 1997 19:23:18 PST."
             <19971106192318.04591@dog.farm.org> 
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:51:18 -0800
Message-ID: <15156.878889078@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Maybe some other sort of `important information' broadcasts
> can be developed.  I just don't think `watch for errata on web page'
> is perfect.  

Well, I think that the key thing that's lacking here is simply a
willingness on people's part to READ things, specifically the
Newsflash section or the release notes or any of a number of other
documents which refer to the ERRATA, a quick read of that then revealing
the following text:

	This file contains post-release ERRATA for 2.2.5 and should always
	be considered the definitive place to look *first* before reporting
	a problem with this release.  This file will also be periodically
	updated as new issues are reported so even if you've checked this
	file recently, check it again before filing a bug report.

Which is about as self-explanatory as it's possible to get.

Now there is also a level that one can try to attain, sort of
Windows-like in direction, where the user is expected to be a complete
idiot and every other dialog box says things like "Have you read the
ERRATA?", "Are you *sure* you've read the ERRATA?", "Hey, while you're
installing, how about reading the ERRATA just one more time?"  but
that would no longer be Unix and I haven't got the stamina to go to
such extremes even if I wanted to.

I'm afraid that people are simply going to have to learn how to read
and all these suggestions for mechanisms which replace the need for
that rather fundamental skill are rather missing the point.  The
ERRATA is already good enough as it is and if some users are missing
it, despite already having numerous pointers to it (and quite clear
instructions to *keep* looking at it), then those users have gotten
unforgivably lazy and it's time for them to improve their habits.

					Jordan