Meta-discussion about talking about Linux (was Re: [NBLUG/talk] Boot Loader problem)

sms at sonic.net sms at sonic.net
Mon May 3 12:15:27 PDT 2004


> The documentation is out there.  I didn't code grub or create
> the installation  program for Red Hat or Fedora Core.

Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that any errors in "default behavior"
of the code (and/or insufficiencies in the documentation) were your
fault!  they're clearly not.

And if I came across as implying otherwise, then _I_ am at fault.

All I mean to say is that the "roll your own" attitude is pervasive,
and a problem (it's a problem I realize that I have contributed to,
myself); and perhaps it needs to be pruned from time to time.  It's
not even clear to me that your reply WAS an instance in need of such
"pruning"... it's just not clear to me that it's NOT.

As I mentioned last rant, I've run into this myself... and I was doing
shellscripts & kernel-makes under SunOS 4.0.x 10-15 years ago, and
have been doing sundry UNIXoid stuff (more or less SysAdmin'ish) since
then.


> Agreed.  Which is why I decided to try to invoke more discussion on the
> part  of the user and the group.  We all know that the questioner has
> posted  homework questions to this list in the past.  Not a bad thing,
> but learning  must take place in the college course arena, there are
> course mailing lists  that the user can ask questions on.... I am a
> member of that particular course mailing list and the questions were
> asked there.

On a "take each question as it comes" front, I see no particular reason
to hold the issue of *other* questions being inappropriate as a reason
not to answer *this* question.  OTOH, we're all human & I've certainly
been unwilling to answer questions for someone who's previously shown
that they can't even be bothered to do "due diligence" to find their own
answers... and, of course, passing a class (for academic credit) on the
basis of what a _list_ knows is usually not considered "kosher."

I guess a key question, IMHO, is "What *IS* the RTFM 'due diligence' for
Linux?"  Back in the '90s (particularly early/mid decade) I think the
bar was pretty high; if you fubar'ed your box, it wasn't _reasonable_ to
expect much help unless you had clearly already done quite a bit of your
own digging (and not just digging the hole you were in, but demonstrated
your efforts to dig your own way out).  Complex questions were often held
to be completely-answered with the reply "RTFM."

But increasingly, Linux is being touted as a "viable" platform for non-
hobbiest use.  Increasingly, "RTFM" is an anti-answer, not merely "not
an answer" but actively harmful to the Linux community, many of whom are
(or hope to be) making a living by making viable business configurations
in a timely fashion.

Not, of course, that nblug-talk is collectively obligated to offer a suite
of professional consulting-services with 24/7 availability and a 15-minute
guaranteed first-response time...   };^D>


>> I guess it depends.  If this is a "sandbox" system for a hobbyist,
>> such an approach seems fine.  OTOH, if it's a business system, or an
>> only-box at home, an "object lesson" may be less appreciated.  Even an
>> "impatient" end-user may not *care* to muck about debugging stuff, and
>> just want a *working* environment... and so long as self-debugging is
>> normative for linux, it remains a hobbiest OS, not
>> professional-caliber.
>
> An impatient end user in most instances probably would not install 3
> operating  systems onto 2 hard disk drives. ; )

<heh>
Point.  That _does_ rather look like a "hobbiest" config...

(FWIW, I *have* done dual-boot-disk config's in a commercial environment,
*and* triple-OS boot's (not, admittedly, at the same site...) )


> > And before you say "but multi-OS booting is a complex issue that
> > shouldn't be done by unqualified people..." I'll suggest that in the
> > Real World with MS-dominance, multi-booting should be the default
> > expectation, and any "default expectation" should be aimed at the
> > average (unqualified) user.
>
> It is the default expectation of the Red Hat Installer to recognize
> other  operating systems and configure them accordingly in the boot
> loader.  The  install process for a multiboot (triple+) system is NOT
> foolproof when it  comes to installing the boot loader... you have to
> know a little bit about  boot loaders to configure the machine
> correctly.

<nod>

But (IMHO) tripleboot should be made pretty bulletproof; it's a common-
enough situation, and the conditions to DTRT are clearly understood...
Not your fault that it's NOT bulletproof, but the possible/likely
confusions are not, IMHO, necessarily evidence that an end-user has
failed the "due diligence" test before asking to just be given answers.


> Not a bad thing.  Don't get me or my actions wrong, I post many
> answers/solutions right off the top on this list and never bat an eye.

Yep; you're on my personal "shortlist" of folks here who return an
uncommonly-high reward for the time I invest reading.  Please don't
take my queries on this, even my critical queries, to be statements
that I think you're "in the wrong."  That's not my position -- not at
all!


> In this instance I felt something in my gut that made me hold onto
> the solution for a bit.

They're your guts.  I don't know how they felt.  ;-)


> Other lists that I am associated with do not post answers to the list.
> The answers or possible solutions are sent directly to the questioner.
> It is  then the questioner's responsibility comprehend, digest and
> compile the merits of each solution and post a summary back to the list
> of the best possible solutions to the question.  Sometimes they do....
> sometimes they  don't.

That sounds, frankly, rather like a developer-oriented (even an academic)
environment.  There is an expectation that the requestor has the luxury
of time to try multiple approaches, possibly even benchmarking or applying
other "metrics" of some sort, and produce a "report" on results.  Not a
bad thing, at all; in fact, a very necessary thing, so that end-users can
in the end benefit from such efforts.  But not a general-audience thing,
either.  IMHO & all that!


- Steve S.







More information about the talk mailing list