[MPlayer-users] firewalls needed :)

Wed Dec 19 13:19:22 CET 2001

On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 12:54, Roger Fujii wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> 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....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTFM!!!  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/DOCS
> Search:  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/cgi-bin/htsearch
> http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-users
> 

I agree 100%
-- 
Santiago Muelas (Depto. de Mecánica)         
http://w3.mecanica.upm.es/~smuelas
ETSI de Caminos, Canales y Puertos (U.P.M)    smuelas at mecanica.upm.es
Dr.Aranguren s/n - Ciudad Universitaria       Tf. 91 336 6659
MADRID 28040