Re: [cobalt-users] Let's get this over with...

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 8/28/00 11:14 AM, Jerry Pape at jpape@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> All,
> 
> NEWSGROUPS and Categorical Web-Based HOW TOs are the next step...
> 
> Let me offer the flame-out option
> -----------------------------------
> Try searching for '~user' or any other common UNIX construction in the
> archives--you can't--instead you get hits on 'user' because the search
> engine ignores many specials. As I am sure you all know, there is an awfully
> large difference between '~user' and 'user'. This deficiency should alone
> be the death knell of ht:dig, the current engine.

ht:dig can probably be configured to do this 'properly'.  ht:dig, in my
opinion, is kick ass.

But I would ascertain that the problem is rarely the search engine, rather
PEBKAC (problem exists between keyboard and chair).  What is the likelihood
that ~user would pop up with the answer to the (albeit obvious to you an I)
question?  Slim to none.  '~user' is not really standard format for
requesting documentation on the UserDir apache directive.  It all comes back
to RTFM... with a minimum amount of research you should be able to learn the
lingo necessary to find the answer.  If you don't know the language, how can
you ask a question and expect a correct answer?  While this applies to this
example, and there are certainly several exceptions to my logic here, by and
large you *must* know the subject in order to talk intelligently about it.

Point in fact: If I go to Honda's website and search their knowledgeable for
'4 x 100mm' I can't expect the search engine to return information about a
bolt patterns for civic wheels.  I mean give me a break.

The common misconception is that everyone thinks that they can jump into
providing internet services without doing their due diligence--which is
quite simply not true.  I don't by a Car from Honda and expect to know how
to maintain, fix, repair or even operate it without doing a significant
amount of research.

> Let's consider the overall objective:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Put yourself in the mindset of a cobalt user, you:
> 
> 1) Might be a UNIX whiz with no Cobalt experience
> 2) Might be a high-end user with a little experience in several OSes
> 3) Might have little or no experience in UNIX or Cobalt.
> 4) Might be a UNIX & Cobalt whiz (why are you here?--to help others?
> my point exactly)

I can't even remember the last time I solicited this list for assistance.
That puts me in the wrong percentile, but the list suits me perfectly.

> Let's consider bandwidth?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone tell me why it is better to get 100-200 messages per
> day from Cobalt USER-SEC-DEV lists than to download x-over headers via NNTP
> once or twice a day and then chose to selectively pull a few
> interesting articles?
> 
> The current system is outrageously wasteful of net bandwidth and a
> pretty piteous example of net-citizenship.

The current setup of this list has been argued over and rehashed more times
then I like to remember.

Several of the repeating themes as to why a mailing list is superior to a
newsgroup:
* pro-active: messages come to you
* require little additional setup
* performance--reading news, especially if you aren't getting the feeds
direct appears to be slow to many users

And it doesn't save much bandwidth--just moves it around.  Instead of having
all the users downloading the lists, we just have a gazillion news servers
doing it.  How can this possible provide a overall bandwidth savings?  And
what the hell is this about "wasteful of net bandwidth"?  The net isn't
really a non-renewable resource that is getting wasted--on the contrary--if
you *don't* use the bandwidth it gets wasted.  And besides this is the sort
of high-value content that 'deserves' the bandwidth... as even having
morally justify this is making me nauseous.

And one last thing: bandwidth is cheap.  The volume we are talking about is
some minute that I can't even believe I am 'wasting' the precious bytes
talking about it.

> 2)  Lurking as an in vitro learning tool requires an eventual
> encounter with an FAQ. These netiquette violations can be reduced
> with the regular FAQ posting found in most serious newsgroups. As I
> see it, "no FAQ=no foul", so stop throwing rocks at each other--you
> sound like a bunch of undersexed unix.

While I am perfectly comfortable reading this message in a newsgroup type
setting, many users are just plain unfamiliar with it.  This would exclude
the exact people that you claim are not be effectively served by the methods
currently being implemented.

And even though I read usenet, I prefer this format anyway.

> 3) Look at this from the top down--the simple fact that every new
> Cobalt customer asks the same spectrum of questions (perms, cgiwrap,
> php, DNS, service mods [read--warranty violations], security
> concerns, updates, etc), runs the risk of igniting the wrath of the
> petty for some innocent netiquette faux pas, and still comes up
> empty-handed is a complete INDICTMENT of the current system.

What makes you think that by shifting to a newsgroup or whatever would cut
down on this?  By simply posting a FAQ every once in a while?  Hell, we can
do that NOW.  And we should.  But again, we'll be shifting the questions
from a mailing list to a newsgroup--a net effect of zero.

You are aware, of course, that there are gateways between mailman lists and
newsgroups--you can have your cake and eat it too.  If this is what you want
to do, by all means go ahead and do it.

> In conclusion
> ---------------------------------
> Because the newsgroups can have greater categorical detail in naming,
> the postings to and subsequent archiving of the groups would be
> naturally self-categorizing (i.e. cobalt.raq3.ups would speak for
> itself).

This is the big problem and the main reason we haven't fragmented the lists:
most of the issues cover all products.  We would be required to read a
gazillion different lists (or per your proposal, newsgroups) to find a
solution.  Less than idea.

And this is what I always get wielded out by.  This list is a fairly low
volume list.  Yet people are always complaining about the volume.  While I
agree that "high-volume" is an interpreted meter, I find the complaints
ridiculous.  It isn't 'overwhelming' by any stretch of the imagination.

So instead of having a moderate volume list (where answers come quickly)
some people propose to break them up into several, less effective, very low
volume lists.  Good idea!  Then we deal with all the lamers who think
cross-posting is cool.  That will PO guys like me (and certainly Dom) more
than even the most atrocious offenders currently.
 
> Lastly, and most importantly, the big picture--whether it's lists or
> newsgroups, either should be viewed as nothing more than a gathering
> mechanism for the regular collation and publishing of categorical HOW
> TO web pages, thereby facilitating easy access, lower frustration,
> and good karma for all.

So I would say, build a gateway and see if it is popular.  It can be done.

Although I disagree with your logic and conclusions in their entirety, I
appreciate the straight forward method in which you have provided your
opinions.  You have presented the facts in a method that is vastly superior
than anyone else has.

-k