Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Dave Korn" <dk AT artimi DOT com>
To: "'Cygwin List'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: ssh configuration that is pulling my hair out!
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:34:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040126123546.03cde5b0@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <NUTMEG8NYpyBnSrurDf00000017@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2004 18:34:30.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[08EF74E0:01C3E43B]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Larry Hall

> Otherwise, adding what should be obvious to the FAQ isn't 
> going to pass muster.  The FAQ isn't the place for the obvious.  

AYS?  The FAQ is the place for _frequently_ asked questions, and I've always
assumed that frequency of questions is orthogonal to whether they're obvious
or not[*].  After all, its whole raison d'etre is to save the list the
bother of having to repeatedly answer the same questions that come up time
after time after time.... Surely that's justification for putting any
question (no matter how obvious the answer) in the FAQ solely on the grounds
of how often it crops up?

OTOH 'frequently' in this context should imply 'asked by a variety of
different people', rather than 'asked by one person repeatedly'.... ;)



    cheers, 
      DaveK

-- 
[*]  It is of course a depressing fact of the human condition that where
you'd expect there to be an inverse correlation between obviousness of the
answer to a question and frequency with which that question gets asked, in
practice the correlation seems to be positive.[**]

[**]  And if that's not depressing enough, it also seems that the positive
correlation is more likely exponential than linear......


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/