Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:23:23 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Blunt Tools (was: cgf does not want private email about cygwin)
Message-ID: <20010627022323.O19058@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3B375E40 DOT 1000304 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <F1CCDC350108D51180730002A55CA6B00EAD81 AT xmail DOT context DOT com> <20010625101924 DOT C9771 AT redhat DOT com> <20010625111149 DOT B1176 AT pinksheets DOT com> <3B375E40 DOT 1000304 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010625133536 DOT A1280 AT pinksheets DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010625140310 DOT 0209d5c8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20010625154753 DOT A804 AT pinksheets DOT com> <20010625170532 DOT A13721 AT redhat DOT com> <3B392A12 DOT 9C656CF7 AT etr-usa DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3B392A12.9C656CF7@etr-usa.com>; from warren@etr-usa.com on Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 06:34:26PM -0600

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 06:34:26PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I'll agree with Larry, though, that I find messages which have actual
>>information in them like "I searched the FAQ" to be refreshing.  It
>>cuts down on the "Check the FAQ" "I already checked the FAQ!!!" type of
>>interchanges.
>
>The FAQ should be complete enough that you can tell simply from reading
>the question wether they've read the FAQ or not.
>
>Exchanges like your hypothetical one only happen when the FAQ gives
>ambiguous or incomplete answers.

Ah yes, another "should be".  Sigh.

It doesn't matter how complete you make a FAQ.  There will always be
people who can't assimilate information unless they've engaged in a long
torturous dialog.  The FAQ can *never* have every single answer to every
single question.

Regardless, maybe you missed the point of my message.  I was just saying
that if someone asks a question without presenting all of the steps that
they had taken to diagnose a problem, the result is a back and forth
exchange that could have been avoided.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/