Re: [uml-user] Running latest uml patched kernel.

[Geoff T. <ge...@ge...>]

* Net Llama! (net...@li...) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > net...@li... said:
> > > I'm pretty sure you have to specify skas mode explicitly when you
> > > start the UML instance if you've got both modes compiled in.
> >
> > Wrong.
> 
> 
> Why don't you get off your high horse, and
> actually document this properly so that these same questions wouldn't have
> to come up over & over again.  I'm really starting to suspect that you
> intentionally provide poor & incomplete dox just so that you can rush in
> to belittle those who make an honest attempt to assist others.

Why don't get off your low horse and stop slingshotting?

You made a short blanket statement, as quoted above, saying something
unambiguously wrong and misleading. If Jeff spent all the time necessary
fine-tuning docs to close every possible hole that might otherwise lead
people to have misunderstandings or mistakes, UML wouldn't exist as it
does today. That doesn't mean he shouldn't catch the occasional instance
when those who are contributing help on the lists are actually making
matters worse by introducing misunderstandings and errors. He is after
all, "last tier" support!

If you want to help people on the list - that's cool, but you help
nobody by actually getting it wrong (esp. when the only "qualifier" in
your statement to suggest you weren't 100% certain was that you started
out "I'm pretty sure"). So Jeff pointed out you were wrong which, given
the flip-flop nature of the question at hand, implicitly points out what
the *right* answer is. I don't see a problem with you trying to help,
even if imperfectly, and nor do I see a problem with Jeff taking what
time he can spare to catch things like this from falling through the
cracks.

If that's belittling to you, then your self-confidence is perhaps a
little too closely bound to your level of competence with UML.

Cheers,
Geoff

-- 
Geoff Thorpe
ge...@ge...
http://www.geoffthorpe.net/