[MPlayer-users] firewalls needed :)

[Roger Fujii]

Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 Dec 2001 04:16, you wrote:
> > [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> 
> > You know what else? There's always gonna be the user who doesn't read
> > them, or "get" them. You can't get around it. You and I got mplayer up
> > and running with the docs; does that mean that everyone must then be at
> > least as savvy as you and I, else they can just go away?
> 
> Yes, that's pretty much it. If they cannot read, they shouldn't be using a
> computer. If they don't understand what the docs say, then they can paste the
> part they don't understand, and ask for clarification on the list. I'm not
> going to go as far as suggesting that they should (shock-horror) submit a
> documentation patch with a clearer explanation...

You know, of all the mail lists I've been involved with (kernel devel, emulators...),
this list, for some reason, has a knack for generating responses like that -
"It's written somewhere in the docs, so you must be a stupid user that can't read".
The problem is a) the docs aren't clear.  b) It's organized extremely poorly
c) requires an ENORMOUS amount of technical knowledge just to understand the
terminology.  It is not unreasonable, given the state things are in, that
simple questions that are not obvious in the docs (like settting up GUI -
why isn't there a configuration section?) will come up.  

If you (the list) are going to answer questions like jerks, don't be surprised
if people think that you are.
 
> > First, this ain't "university", this is the real world. A bad attitude
> > only brings on bad attitudes (that won't be forgotten easily), not bad
> > grades. Second, show me the last post from an MPlayer developer who came
> > close to phrasing his reply as nicely as you paraphrased your professor's.
> > They're rare.
> My only suggestion and agreement with what you said is the automatic reply
> from the mailbot. I think it should be changed to something more polite such
> as:
> 
> "Please read the documentation before posting to this list. Developers will
> NOT answer questions that are already answered in the documentation."
> 
> What do the rest of you guys think?

I think that for the list "mplayer-USERS" (this is not by convention a
devel list), if you can't say something constructive other than read the manual,
and not be inflammatory in the process, you should just punt the question.  
 
> > Were my projects to get the amount of questions MPlayer gets, especially
> > with the docs, I might ask myself if they couldn't be better organised?
> This is only a subjective opinion, but I had no problem getting MPlayer
> working perfectly, with just the documentation it comes with.

It took me several shots, as things like "./configure --help
" doesn't list 
all the parameters (like --enable-gui).  I know of *NO* other program that
requires me to read the ENTIRE doc just to run configure. 
 
> > I see where the team is looking for sponsers. I'll be surprised if they
> > get any serious offers with an attitude like that which Gabucino so
> > richly demonstrated in his reply to me.
> I have to disagree here. It depends on what they need MPlayer for. Note that
> "sponsors" here is not equal to "users". Not in any way. If somebody wants to
> add MPlayer to their UNIX distribution, then they will want it for the
> quality of the product itself.

mplayer's technical superiority might prevail IN SPITE of the attitude, 
but bad press certainly won't help.  On the whole, people don't like to work
with people that are disagreeable.
 
> > A'rpi wants "damage control"?  No matter what forces he musters to try
> > to clean up the developer's and/or MPlayer's image, it won't amount to
> > beans if the mailing lists' responses continue to be inflammatory.
> You have half a point here. I would suggest here that the developers do not
> answer questions that are answered in the docs at all. No answer is a
> possible improvement to flaming. Although the right of flaming should be
> deserved for the people who persistently ask questions without reading the
> manual.

That should be done in a direct message.   In any case, the observation is correct.
No point in damage control when your speading flames on the deck...
 
> > I've been maintaining software on the 'net for six years now, and just
> > started another project. I have and likely always will get questions
> > about stuff that is clearly documented. I have never flamed the user,
> > nor would I. The software is for them, right? Why would anyone insult
> > his client or customer?
> I think that the answer to questions with documented answers should be at
> most a link to the correct page in the documentation. Otherwise, what is the
> point in having a manual?

That's perfectly acceptable.  A link is infinitely better/more polite/useful
than RTFM.

-r 

-- 
Roger Fujii <rmf at lookhere.com>
Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....