In the old days (I'm talking BBSes here), there was no Google, no "web", and no easily searchable archives of a decades worth of discussions. Most of the online projects had little or no documentation. The Telegard BBS software, for instance, was a pile of mostly obfuscated, uncommented (or incorrectly commented) code. There were no autoconf scripts for building on different platforms. Most of the interesting knowledge was in people's heads, which made the question/answer groups very valuable. There were few enough newbies that answering their questions was not overly taxing.
Now, we have Google, we have the web, we have discussion archives, README files, support "Knowledge Bases" and so forth. The user guides for many projects are still abysmal, but at least the more popular ones have gotten quite good. We also have an enormous amount of newbies. So, in short, the number of people asking questions has increased dramatically, and there is much less excuse for them.
As a list member, why should I expect to have my question answered without bothering to read a README, search the web, check the archives, etc? As a project maintainer, when I spend hours putting together and editting FAQs and documentation, why should I not be angry that the users do not bother to use them?
Sure, there are holes and ambiguities in documentation; there are advanced problems and unusual circumstances, but most of these questions are not about these things. Most, in fact, are not even looking for the information, but a solution: "Can you show me a script that solves exactly my problem?" Reading this kind of question, especially after referring them to appropriate tutorials, tells me that not only did they not do their homework this time, but that the really don't want to know how to do it next time either--- they just want their problem to go away at the expense of my effort. Rather rude, don't you think? It is just salt in the wound that the people asking these questions are the same people who are taking jobs here. These folks won't invest in their own skillset, but they will leach off of mine.
I think, to a large extent, this is where the "old spirit" has gone. In order for some of the politness and openness to come back, there has to be a measure of common courtesy on the other side.
There *are* some further points that seem to be overlooked:
1) ITMS is starting to pick up indepentent labels. They do not pay RIAA for them. I know an artist who is considering ITMS as a distribution option.
2) Only by leading with a (large) loss to RIAA is company going to be able to pick up enough independent labels *and* enough traffic to turn that corner and start to break the cartel hold. Once (if) ITMS loosens its dependence on the cartel, Jobs has something to negotiate with since more (bigger) artists will consider going direct to electronic distribution--- especially if they get higher royalties.
It's a rather large gamble, but, given their hardware, Apple is in a position to take that risk. If they succeed, the market may change. In the short turn, the independent artists have a choice which did not exist before.
What about stealth radicals? I have seen it happen on a local level where a candidate (school board, town council, etc) runs and gets elected on a mild platform only to reveal a hidden agenda (e.g., they are neo-nazis). That is why the decision should be based on character, not policies. The policies a candidate will actually enact often differ quite strongly from what they campaign with.
2) If/When they end up running the country, they will also be selecting staff. Something that reflects on their staff reflects on their ability to choose competent staff.
At the most basic level, it should be about neither personality nor policies, but character. The point of having a representative in DC is to have someone who would make decisions I would approve of (or at least accept) given the information that they have available to them.
Since I am not in DC and am not privy to all the facts, this necessarily means that a good representative will sometimes disagree with constituents on policy.
I do not want to have to babysit every politician on every decision--- I have a life to lead as well. I want someone I can largely trust to make good decisions, not to simply react to my expressed opinion. I should only have to get involved at important junctures, should be able to (largely) trust reported information (e.g.: "We have evidence that Iraq has WMD").
This is the difference between mob government and representative government. We hire administrators to run things on our behalf with our input. Sadly, I do not see candidates that I would trust with a pet rock while under armed guard.
Also, notice that this is a problem which *may* be remotely exploitable in a *non-standard configuration*, when certain default security measures have been *disabled by the user*. This is not in the same league as "Oops, we left the RPC port open and rootable by default."
The class of errors being fixed by OpenSSH is very different and the design takes security much more seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
The resources available have changed.
In the old days (I'm talking BBSes here), there was no Google, no "web", and no easily searchable archives of a decades worth of discussions. Most of the online projects had little or no documentation. The Telegard BBS software, for instance, was a pile of mostly obfuscated, uncommented (or incorrectly commented) code. There were no autoconf scripts for building on different platforms. Most of the interesting knowledge was in people's heads, which made the question/answer groups very valuable. There were few enough newbies that answering their questions was not overly taxing.
Now, we have Google, we have the web, we have discussion archives, README files, support "Knowledge Bases" and so forth. The user guides for many projects are still abysmal, but at least the more popular ones have gotten quite good. We also have an enormous amount of newbies. So, in short, the number of people asking questions has increased dramatically, and there is much less excuse for them.
As a list member, why should I expect to have my question answered without bothering to read a README, search the web, check the archives, etc? As a project maintainer, when I spend hours putting together and editting FAQs and documentation, why should I not be angry that the users do not bother to use them?
Sure, there are holes and ambiguities in documentation; there are advanced problems and unusual circumstances, but most of these questions are not about these things. Most, in fact, are not even looking for the information, but a solution: "Can you show me a script that solves exactly my problem?" Reading this kind of question, especially after referring them to appropriate tutorials, tells me that not only did they not do their homework this time, but that the really don't want to know how to do it next time either--- they just want their problem to go away at the expense of my effort. Rather rude, don't you think? It is just salt in the wound that the people asking these questions are the same people who are taking jobs here. These folks won't invest in their own skillset, but they will leach off of mine.
I think, to a large extent, this is where the "old spirit" has gone. In order for some of the politness and openness to come back, there has to be a measure of common courtesy on the other side.
There *are* some further points that seem to be overlooked: 1) ITMS is starting to pick up indepentent labels. They do not pay RIAA for them. I know an artist who is considering ITMS as a distribution option. 2) Only by leading with a (large) loss to RIAA is company going to be able to pick up enough independent labels *and* enough traffic to turn that corner and start to break the cartel hold. Once (if) ITMS loosens its dependence on the cartel, Jobs has something to negotiate with since more (bigger) artists will consider going direct to electronic distribution--- especially if they get higher royalties. It's a rather large gamble, but, given their hardware, Apple is in a position to take that risk. If they succeed, the market may change. In the short turn, the independent artists have a choice which did not exist before.
What about stealth radicals? I have seen it happen on a local level where a candidate (school board, town council, etc) runs and gets elected on a mild platform only to reveal a hidden agenda (e.g., they are neo-nazis). That is why the decision should be based on character, not policies. The policies a candidate will actually enact often differ quite strongly from what they campaign with.
1) We're geeks, looking at this is fun.
2) If/When they end up running the country, they will also be selecting staff. Something that reflects on their staff reflects on their ability to choose competent staff.
At the most basic level, it should be about neither personality nor policies, but character. The point of having a representative in DC is to have someone who would make decisions I would approve of (or at least accept) given the information that they have available to them.
Since I am not in DC and am not privy to all the facts, this necessarily means that a good representative will sometimes disagree with constituents on policy.
I do not want to have to babysit every politician on every decision--- I have a life to lead as well. I want someone I can largely trust to make good decisions, not to simply react to my expressed opinion. I should only have to get involved at important junctures, should be able to (largely) trust reported information (e.g.: "We have evidence that Iraq has WMD").
This is the difference between mob government and representative government. We hire administrators to run things on our behalf with our input. Sadly, I do not see candidates that I would trust with a pet rock while under armed guard.
Also, notice that this is a problem which *may* be remotely exploitable in a *non-standard configuration*, when certain default security measures have been *disabled by the user*.
This is not in the same league as "Oops, we left the RPC port open and rootable by default."
The class of errors being fixed by OpenSSH is very different and the design takes security much more seriously.