Stuck-up Wizards (Re: Summary and Fix for "slashes in filenames")

[Blair P. Houghton]

In article <=H_&Z9#@rpi.edu> rodney at sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes:
>You've missed the point.  I don't think that most of the flame here is
>because someone asked how to get rid of a file with a '/' in it.  It is
>instead because of all the people who are offering wrong answers.
>
>This exact argument went though this group last year with basically the
>same results.

Those who do not learn from history are numerous and reproductive;
so, what's your point?

>The point is -- this is supposed to be a place where people who really 
>actually guarenteed know the answer to some difficult question will answer
>you.  cuw is not the place for people to throw in their two cents.  There's
>a whole other tree that was created for just that purpose.

And which might that be?

I've seen plenty of comp.unix.internals/wizards threads
that were valuable only after a large number of people had
tweaked the solution.  That's how problems get solved.
Anyone who is capable of solving problems alone isn't
hanging around playing pinochle and kibbitzing about
slashes in filenames.

And, some questions have no answer, only answer-determining
algorithms, with many decision points, with many options,
depending on the systems under which the algorithms are to be
implemented.  I'd rather have fifty short, half-right answers
and a clue than one, dead-right answer and be left with the
need to post asking what the answer means on my platform.

Someone posted something incorrect?  Welcome to the planet
Earth.  Say it's wrong, say what's right, give us all some
sleep.  (Pardon my hypocrisy; someone's gotta sacrifice so
that others may gain, and I have little to lose.  (Hi, Doug! :-))

>and finally, just because a question comes back again and again, doesn't
>mean that all the wrong answers have to be dragged out again.

As a tautology, that would be correct, if only because
asking a repeated question can't prevent a wrong answer.
However, it's likely that if the question didn't get into
everyone's knowledge, the correct answer couldn't have,
either.  In fact, if in the standard methodology the answer
is hidden but necessary, then the question must eventually
be deduced, but the answer -- right or wrong -- would have
to wait for the question before it could be produced.

>if someone wants to say "hey I read these answers in
>the faq, and I didn't see this idea .... why won't this work?" -- that,
>in my opinon, would be fine.

Elitism is no defense for flaming this poor slob:

"Hey, I've been reading this group far longer than my
employer and I think is valuable (must be ten minutes, at
least), and I haven't come across this question, and I'm on
a deadline and ... how do I get back rm'ed files?"

Any question has essentially that same etiology, even if
the deadline is only for personal reasons, or economics is
only a minor cause.

If you had the time and character to wait for the truth to
come to you, or the resources to attract it irresistably,
you wouldn't need question marks at all.

Anyone who asks "What's a FAQ?" without first having heard
of one is clairvoyant.

>in summary -- it's not a question of people being out of line.  it's a
>question of being considerate when you offer advice to someone who is
>expecting your answer to work.

The general admonition for that is to test it yourself.

But even that is a lesson that requires experience to
prove its economy.

				--Blair
				  "You don't.  You weep for their
				   unlinking and pray that it's on
				   the backups and you can find a
				   good hypnotist to help you type
				   in your changes again."