Is there actually an answer to this question?

Is there actually an answer to this question?

Post by Jad » Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:00:00

        Hias.. Uhm.. I know this question's been asked a lot of times
already, I've seen it myself, but I've yet to see one answer.. Uhm.. I
just upgraded from kernel 1.2.8 to 1.2.13, then to 1.3.13.. 1.2.13 works
fine, no problems yet, but 1.3.13 (as I understand) changed the way it
reads the termcap or something, so now I can't get any Hi-intensity
colours up on my 'ls' listing.. Uhm, I'd be eternally thankful if someone
could point out how to fix this little quirk, etc..


+-- --  -      Paul Kiela       -  -- --+-- --  -                 -  -- --+

+-- --  -                       -  -- --+-- --  -                 -  -- --+


1. Posting question answers in comp.os.linux.answers (was Re: Readme and give your opinion!)

(Followups redirected to comp.os.linux.misc; there's nothing in this topic
related specifically to setting up Linux.)

|> If you reply to a question, why not post a copy of it in comp.os.linux.answers
|> also? I, and hopefully others, only need to check on that newsgroup to
|> learn a lot about Linux.

You are confused.

Like all the other "*.answers" newsgroups in the Usenet newsgroup hierarchy,
the comp.os.linux.answers newsgroup is moderated, and is intended to contain
*only* FAQ postings.  Here's the charter of the group, from its CFV:

        2) Group: comp.os.linux.answers (moderated)

         Charter: For posting Linux FAQs, How-To's, READMEs and other
                  documents that answer questions about Linux.  This will
                  help keep the traffic down in other c.o.l.* groups and will
                  leave comp.os.linux.announce for true announcements.

I just counted 1,480 unique articles appearing in comp.os.linux.development.*,
.hardware, .misc, .networking, .setup and .x on a recent day (and that's not
counting comp.os.linux.m68k, which I don't get, comp.os.linux.advocacy, which
isn't technical, or comp.os.linux.announce and .answers, which aren't
discussion groups).  If even 10% of those are "answers" which under your
scheme would be cross-posted to comp.os.linux.answers, that would mean over
100 additional messages per day in comp.os.linux.answers, thus totally
negating its function as an archive of FAQ postings, and frankly making it not
much less difficult to wade through than all the other Linux groups are now.

Not to mention the fact that even if we were to propose and get created a new
group whose sole purpose was to contain answers to questions posted in other
groups, it would invariably fail in that purpose because (a) people post wrong
answers all the time, (b) the same question is often answered numerous times,
(c) people will post followups to answers which aren't themselves answers but
which will end up being cross-posted to the "answers" group anyway, and (d)
answers to questions about all different topics would end up getting mixed up
in the one "answers" newsgroup, which would defeat the whole purpose of
splitting up comp.os.linux into separate groups.

|> --
|> Marco Davids
|> Systemsadministrator (mailhub1)

I long fondly for the days when the system administrators were the people who
understood how Usenet works and who understood the importance of using
informative Subject lines in Usenet postings.

2. personal to Erin McGill

3. Netscape Question (I pay $1 for answers, $5 for correct answers.)

4. making bzip2 work with xman pages

5. I am looking for a simple answer - CompTIA, LPI or Red Hat Certification?

6. New App?

7. Am I inside - an answer.c

8. RH 6.2 and gnome problems

9. Actually...A better question

10. Compaq & Leehnooks...(general question, actually)

11. Techie question: What does the mount program ACTUALLY do??

12. DOS Merge Question (Ray of Hope actually)

13. 2 Questions on Bourne (actually, ksh88) I/O redirection