How to Answer a Linux Question
 

A new la entry has been added:

How to Answer a Linux Question

Nice article. But I wanted to ask two things:

I found a typo under the Homework-Style Reply section: it says "gnu/Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux".

And one part that I didn't get:

The corporate media does not approve of FOSS and also because of the propaganda launched by proprietary s/w companies many 'brainwashed users' may hold strange beliefs. It should be clearer.

I still don't really get it.

So some people believe that the fact that Linux is downloaded for free means that the creators of Linux have their copyrights infringed?

Ugh; I should have spotted these before.


Antifeatures:


The link does not for me resolve to anything useful, but I do get a 'your DNS provider thought you might like this stuff instead' page. I don't see anything useful with antifeatures in the domain name, but I did spot:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/antifeatures

although, if people are linked through to this page, they may get confused by the fact that it primarily talks about cameras (and antifeatures in cameras), which could be a surprise.

There is also this great quote from LJ/Cory Doctorow

I think that you meant to write "copy of the commercial software". I'm still not convinced it is actually clear to someone who didn't know this before they read it, though.

is this clearer?

It is also common for users to believe they have an unauthorized copy of a piece of commercial software, and that they are seeking support from fellow copyright infringers in 'cracking' that software.

(Although that doesn't deal with the issue of people who have downloaded an evaluation copy of a normally 'paid-for' piece of enterprise software, who are seeking support in getting around the need to pay, or around the conditions that apply to the evaluation copy. Did you mean to say something about that?)

That's incredible!

I think instead of the "inform moderator" button, it should be "Report" button, since a newbie reading the statement may actually start looking for a "inform moderator" button, which in reality doesn't exist.

@Simon Bridge - once you've been through the changes suggested here, drop me a line and I'll create a new version.

You can

True enough, but, in an ideal world, the point about trying to get the kernel of the question within the first couple of lines ought, therefore, to be in the 'asking a question' advice (and, it would help people getting a heads-up via RSS).

Nice as it is, it is unclear how he second para relates to 'Bad Titles' ('these' therefore being the bad titles, bad titles are thus being claimed to be informative; maybe so, but not particularly); I think the para belongs somewhere else.

One other situation in which you could reasonably reply to your own thread first, is if you suddenly realise that there is information that you ought to give, because otherwise there is no chance of getting a good answer.

...or quote a post number (#)...

rationale not rational

Chambers:
rationale - underlying principle...
rational - endowed with reason, of the reason, agreeable to reason, sane, intelligent...

I'm unsure about that 'peoples': if it is a singular possessive, then it should be 'people's', but that seems ugly (and how can I tell the people are not in more than one group and it shouldn't therefore be peoples'?); 'their' seems to be a better alternative in this case.

I am sure that 'appropriate' ought to be 'relevant'; surely if their initial choice of distro is not appropriate for the application to which they intend to put it, then what we should do is tell them?

Or if the auto-bump period ends.

Or use "@usermame" to refer to the most recent post by "username".

Please note - I am watching but I am also very busy right now. I'll get to it when I can.

Then you edit your original post.

... agreed, and, therefore, this comment needs to added to the discussion of that howto.

... I'd discourage this for the context as the post you want to refer to will not remain the most recent. Quoting the post number (#) is another approach, but can create an arrogant impression: "this has already been answered in post #23"! The reader has not seen the advise first time through, so why should they see it next time? Better is actually to quote the relevant text as well as the number of the post you get it from. Making it a link is even better.

@Xavier - how do I do that?

Through the contact links in my profile - just drop me an email with the latest revision and I'll do the rest.

The reason that I am less-than-keen on advising people to edit their original post, for anything more than typos, etc, is that performing anything other than trivial changes to posts leads to the situation in which posters feel free to change their post dramatically without any history. This is not a good thing.

In this particular context, it is probably OK, but I have concerns that this spills over into a situation in which people do it more generally, in which it isn't.

Writing from my hollowed-out volcano, I can now reveal that the master plan was to wait for this to be issued and stabilised and then go back to that howto and try to get it brought into line.

<hysterical rising tone>
World Domination! Bua, Ha Ha Ha! (I only include that last line because I am contractually obliged by the conditions of my membership of the Union of Meglomaniacs so to do.)
</hysterical rising tone, possibly>
If I can be bothered.

My context was not "that guy already posted the answer", but "that guy wrote something and I want to add to that conversation".

Hello,

Why is there a possibility to enter a 'Title' when replying to a thread? I.O.W. is it possible to change the title when replying to a thread? And if so: why and/or when should I do this? AFAIK this is not mentioned in the FAQ.

Just curious ;-)