Bernard Leak wrote: > Firstly, thanks to Bob Proulx for the helpful pointer to the Debian > search widget. This is a genuinely useful-looking tool. How pleasing!
Not wanting to take credit inappropriately, it was Zack who suggested the Debian package search page. I was the mailx history rant! :-) > But unless he thinks this is another thing I should "just know about", You have to draw the line somewhere. Take for example the contrived problem of documenting fully the process of waking up and going to work in the morning. Spend no more than 25 words describing how to tie your shoes. Is it sufficient for someone who has never seen shoelaces before to replicate the task and learn to tie their shoes? Probably not. True story. One of my friends was picking up his and the neighbor's kids in the car one day. My friend has an older car with crank windows. The neighbor kids had never seen that before and very politely (I was impressed) asked how could they please put the window down? It surprised me, but they had not ever seen a crank window before and eventually needed to ask for help. Those are the types of scenes I think about when I and others ask for help. > I tried quite hard to find out the answers I needed before I first posted > my question. And we appreciate that. I often spend a huge amount of time searching and creating test cases and then posting a note only to find that I missed something very simple. Oh well. One has to do the research first just the same. But then once done don't fear asking for help. Not having made an effort will show. As it will also show having made an honest effort to figure things out. > How difficult does it have to be to find something out before adding it > to the documentation looks like a benefit to other people? I don't think I have ever heard of anyone else having this particular problem before. Mind you there are a *lot* of potential problems. If you are forcing me to state an opinion I would say I think something needs to be asked three times before it becomes a frequently asked question. So no, I actually don't think this is a big deal and would not do anything taking huge effort to make sure it did not happen again. But if the problem did appear a few times or by judgement someone thought that it would be likely to happen then it would be useful to work to avoid. > If you have a lot of time to waste you might try finding "Mail" in > the Linux Documentation Project tree. You do have a lot of time > to waste, don't you? I mean, it *might* be in there. Somewhere. > Yes, I tried this at length before I gave up and made my posting. > Again, I didn't think there was much point in mentioning it. The name is an unfortunately common word. I like the "links" browser. It has some really nice features. But one of the worst things about it is the fact that the name cannot be searched for with any reasonable success. (For those interested look at the extended project "Elinks", as in 'apt-get install elinks', successful because you can search for that name.) Picking an unsearchable project name is a bad thing that we know is a bad thing today. But back when Mail was created, who knew? > Does Bob think that if I don't know that "Mail" = "mail" I am roughly > equally likely not to know about "cat" or "grep"? If so, he is clearly > looking down on me from a position of such altitude as to be quite > unable to recognise the problems the rest of us have. I am sorry my treatise on the history of mailx disturbed you so greatly. It was not my intention. I was really only working from the premise of, "See one, do one, teach one." The reason I shared that essay was that if you don't know about it that it will make no sense. But if you do know about it then many things make sense. I often learn great things from the people who work hard to share their knowledge. In that same spirit I try to give it back when I can. Bob
