This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: <soren_andersen at speedymail dot org>,<cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:55:23 +1100
- Subject: Re: "RTFM'ing": readily accessible user documentation?
- References: <3C472490.18087.4E56FD@localhost>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Soren Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 17 Jan 2002 at 7:54, Robert Collins wrote:
> > I'm going to ignore your newbie-style clueslessness in the body of
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> to take human nature into account at all is a pitfall for those who
> 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
> as lack of tact or diplomacy, but I submit that I at least know about
> underlying and fundamental importance of human nature and at least
> 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
> I also know that there may be a very considerable investment of a
> nature in `setup' as it has become what what it is right now. What
> unfortunate (although certainly I can live with it, personally) would
> that personal investment made by developers of Cygwin caused a general
> intractable deafness to user feedback which is intended
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.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html