From: Rich Kulawiec (rsk@gsp.org)
Date: Sun Jan 29 2006 - 09:28:59 EST
Origin:
Subject: Re: Sun-managers is not a forum for scripting questions
References: <20050811075907.GA22016@iabyn.com>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:59:08AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Can people please stop asking basic scripting questions on sun-managers;
> it is a completely inappropriate forum for this type of question.
You're quite correct. But apparently the message isn't getting through,
so let's try it a little bit louder.
1. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOUR ROUTINE SHELL/PERL/ETC. SCRIPT QUESTIONS.
There are mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups and web sites for those
as well. Find them. Use them. Don't bother us.
And since I'm scribbling anyway, let me add:
2. READ THE FAQ.
If you're too lazy or stupid to read the FAQ, then you don't belong on
this mailing list and you most certainly shouldn't be running Sun or any
other Unix systems.
For example (from a couple of months ago)
Subject: Reg:port number processid
could please send me script to find which processid
is running on that port
It's in the FAQ. It's 12.4. Even if you didn't read the FAQ, just
running "grep port" on it is enough to find the question and thus the
answer. Yet this doesn't seem to stop this question from being asked
about once a month, year after year.
So please: if you're this lazy and/or stupid, go play with Windows.
You'll fit right in.
If you decide to ignore this advice and stick around: no whining when
you are justifiably flamed to a crisp. You deserve it.
3. SEARCH THE ARCHIVES.
The archives of this list are a vast repository of Sun lore. Use
them. And stop wasting our time by asking the same questions that
have already been repeatedly covered in copious detail.
And by the way, there are also these wonderful new things called
"Internet search engines" which can often yield a surprising amount
of information in a few seconds when supplied with a judicious choice
of keywords and/or phrases. If you aren't smart or diligent enough
to use them, please see comment above about where stupid and lazy
people belong. (Hint: not here.)
See also point 13 for how you are going to add to the repository
in this list's archives if you ask a question.
4. DO NOT ADVERTISE YOUR EMPLOYER TO US.
Forcibly subjecting fellow members of this list to promotion on
behalf of your employer is very rude. So don't.
5. DO NOT INCLUDE BOILERPLATE LEGALESE.
It's completely pointless to include "This message is intended for..."
drivel on messages sent to a public mailing list which is propagated
all over the world AND publicly archived.
Duh.
It's also very rude. It's a threat directed at the very people
you're asking for help.
For that matter, it's pointless and rude to include this junk on *any*
messages sent anywhere: go have your legal department look up "adhesion".
(or read footnote [1] below)
Then ask them exactly how they plan to enforce this on a mail message, say,
originating in the US and being read in the Czech Republic. Free clue:
the Internet has vast reach, and your laws are not our laws, for most
values of (your, our).
So...if your employer is run by the kind of boneheads who insist on
attaching this to every outbound message, then send your messages to
this list from someplace else. But please don't threaten us *and* waste
our time and bandwidth with this ridiculous nonsense.
6. DO NOT ADDRESS US AS "GENTLEMEN".
This is a co-ed list. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a
primitive society that hasn't yet accepted women as equal partners in
all fields of endeavor, then that's too bad for you -- but don't even
_think_ about inflicting this cultural (or personal) defect on us.
7. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR SENDMAIL QUESTIONS.
If you'd read the FAQ, you'd already know this.
There is a Usenet newsgroup -- comp.mail.sendmail -- which is the
very best place to ask such questions. A considerable number of
sendmail experts, including a couple of the principal maintainers,
hang out there. They do not hang out here. Take your sendmail
questions there. (If you don't know how to use Usenet newsgroups,
then learn. It's a basic Unix system administration skill.)
8. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT SUN FUTURE DIRECTIONS.
Go ask Sun. Or go discuss it on another mailing list, in a newsgroup,
on a web site, or whatever. But not here.
9. WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO PLAY GUESSING GAMES.
If you can't be bothered to include obviously-relevant information --
like error messages, config files, command lines, and so on -- then
don't expect anyone to bother even trying to answer your question.
10. PICK A MEANINGFUL SUBJECT LINE.
"SSH heeeeelp" and "LDAP LDAP LDAP", as we've seen in the past
few months, are very stupid "Subject" lines. Something more along the
lines of "Sun ssh 3.1 interoperability problem with OpenSSH 4.1p on
FreeBSD" is far better. If you can't even manage to come up with an
appropriate and informative subject line, then don't bother us.
11. NEWBIE QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THE MANUAL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
Do not ask basic system administration questions here. That's what
the manual/books/etc. are for. Recent example:
"Does anybody have a procedure to activate mail / sendmail
system in solaris 9?"
RTFM. Hire a consultant. Read a book. Take a class. But
don't bother us. This list is for the problems that (a) of an urgent
nature (and you'd know that if you'd read the FAQ) and (b) which
require expertise above and beyond that found among most admins or in
the documentation. This is NOT the unix-newbie-admin list -- there are
plenty of those, and if you need one (or more), you should get on them.
But don't bother us.
12. It's spelled "SUMMARY". Not "SUMARY" or "SUMMERY".
Cut and paste it from the FAQ if you have to. But please mark summary
articles per the FAQ, as any number of people are running automatic
archiving/indexing software which relies on it.
If you can't even manage this trivially-easy task, then you are FAR
too stupid to be allowed to even use Unix, let alone manage any
systems connected to our Internet.
13. WRITE A SUMMARY.
Don't be a parasite. If you're not fully prepared to write a
complete, coherent summary then don't ask a question.
That DOES NOT mean an ad-hoc concatentation of responses. It means
a carefully-composed message which outlines the problem, explains the
proposed solutions, evaluates them, etc.
If you are too lazy and/or stupid to do this, then DON'T ASK A QUESTION.
14. THE LANGUAGE OF THIS LIST IS ENGLISH
If your grasp of English is insufficient to participate here,
then start your own Sun-Manager's list in YOUR language. But
*here*, you are expected to be able to read and write coherently
at something approaching a professional level. If you can't manage
that: don't bother us.
15. IF YOU THINK I'M A JERK FOR WRITING THIS
You may be right. But I'm sending it anyway. I grow tired of watching
the continued exodus of the most experienced/talented/helpful people
from this list as they each in turn give up in disgust at the poor
quality of the questions and the even lower quality of the summaries
(or as is more likely these days: their absence).
And the worst part is: NONE of this is hard. Participating in this list
is one of the very *easiest* things you will ever do as a Unix system
adminstrator. If you can't even manage to clear this bar, as low as
it's set, then you should probably resign your position immediately and
shift your career into something more appropriate. Once again, I recommend
Windows system administration, which provides ample opportunities for
idiots of all descriptions. But please, at least have the common courtesy
not to exacerbate *our* problems by remaining in our field: not only
are you an embarrassment to us, but your incompetence is likely to make
our jobs more difficult.
---Rsk
[1] Thanks to Ronald Edge for pointing this out; it's from
Mailing and Posting Etiquette
http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
Don't Send Bogus Legalistic Boilerplate
Including bogus legalistic terms in your messages, like those
some brain-dead lawyers want everyone to put on their faxes, is
a waste of everyone's time. It most certainly does not protect
any proprietary information you might send. For protection,
you need to encrypt.
The boilerplate false and insulting claims of confidentiality
and privilege often take a form like this:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately and destroy this message.
You may not store, forward, distribute, ... upon pain of
legal action.
First, such boilerplate contains useless adhesions, meaning
the explicit and implied threats they make are particularly
annoying. If you send something via email, the recipients (are
you sure you aren't sending to a mailing list?) and anyone else
who sees your clear text postcard in transit can undetectably and
with full deniability do whatever they want with the information
written on it in plain view. Even casual users of email know
email is not a secure communications medium. Thus the threats in
typical bogus legalistic boilerplate are naught but an attempt
at highly improper intimidation. Demands made in this manner
will be regarded as evidence of a hostile attitude on your
part by a significant portion of recipients. The threats will
negatively affect how your recipients perceive the other ideas
in your message.
Second, in the case of mailing lists (are you sure the address
to which you sent isn't one?) or USENET posts, falsely claiming
a message is "confidential and privileged" is simply too stupid
for words. Trying to make your terms adhere to the entire world
without a meeting of the minds is beyond wild. If confidentiality
were an issue, you wouldn't be broadcasting the message, now
would you? You almost certainly wish to avoid gratuitously
insulting your recipients that way.
Third, such legalistic boilerplate a waste of bandwidth and
disk space. Since they serve no useful purpose, such adhesions
are certainly more of a waste than a typical 4 line signature
(which often contains useful contact information for the
sender). Showing respect for your recipients resources, by not
including a signature greater than 4 lines long, will usually
cause your message to be viewed in a more favorable light.
In the end, domains that habitually/automatically include such
threats, gratuitous insults, and wastes of space on their users'
messages likely end up blacklisted. Individual senders who think
it's cool to play dress-up and include such bogus disclaimers
end up having their messages automatically discarded, unread,
by many recipients. Ironically, this is only giving the sender
what they explicitly ask for, as the bogus disclaimers always
seem to demand the message be destroyed.
Avoid those fates. Don't include bogus legalistic boilerplate on
your messages. If you have a confidential and privileged message,
encrypt it to the recipient's public key instead.
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 23:38:47 EDT