Re: Network modules

[Antoninus Twink]

On 14 Apr 2008 at 7:36, InuY4sha wrote:

>Your question isn't about the C language, which is what we discuss
here. Assuming the kernel in question is Linux, you should ask in one
of the Linux newsgroups (possibly linux.dev.kernel, but check the
newsgroup first; all I know about it is that it exists).

I don't agree too much... my question is not about syntax in C, that's
true, but it's correlated with C. In any case, the NG linux.dev.kernel
seems to be dead since a long long time ago; What is left to me is a
couple of other groups with really few members. This one is probably
the best chance for me to get some information..

[snip]

In this case I'm posting my question here with the sole idea in mind
to query a large number of people that could be familiar with what I'm
investigating. You can say that the method is not so much orthodox,
but it's effective.
Indeed I got an answer (and a good one), and I don't think that this
post can damage the NG more than any other spam message (I see
thounsands in this NG).

Thanks - I'm glad it was helpful.

As you've discovered, some of the regular posters here believe strongly
that the limits of topicality in this group should be defined extremely
strictly. Most groups have a FAQ to avoid repeating the same thing over
and over again; clc is the opposite - many people believe that the
questions already answered in the FAQ are pretty well the only thing
that's topical!

As I said, this is the belief of some posters here. The fact that they
express this view aggressively and authoritatively, and claim to speak
for the whole group, doesn't change the fact that it's just the belief
of a certain fraction of the posters.

Others would like to see this newsgroup be a vibrant forum where
real-life C developers can discuss all aspects of C programming in the
real world. Attempting to achieve this utopia by patiently convincing
the people described above by reasoned argument is doomed to failure.
It's best to ignore them, and just get on with asking interesting C
questions, and providing useful answers.

Please don't be discouraged from posting further questions here! There
are many experts here, on everything from Windows C programming to
embedded C programming, all the way through POSIX network development,
Linux kernel development, and everything else you can imagine. Whatever
question you come up with, there's someone here who'll know the answer.
Some people will refuse to tell you the answer, for the reasons
discussed above. But the best way to encourage more people to answer
questions in their fields of expertise is by building a positive
atmosphere where people ask C-related questions freely and frankly, and
where as many of those questions as possible get useful answers.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
the great Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote with conviction:
....

>Thanks - I'm glad it was helpful.

As you've discovered, some of the regular posters here believe strongly
that the limits of topicality in this group should be defined extremely
strictly. Most groups have a FAQ to avoid repeating the same thing over
and over again; clc is the opposite - many people believe that the
questions already answered in the FAQ are pretty well the only thing
that's topical!

As I said, this is the belief of some posters here. The fact that they
express this view aggressively and authoritatively, and claim to speak
for the whole group, doesn't change the fact that it's just the belief
of a certain fraction of the posters.

Others would like to see this newsgroup be a vibrant forum where
real-life C developers can discuss all aspects of C programming in the
real world. Attempting to achieve this utopia by patiently convincing
the people described above by reasoned argument is doomed to failure.
It's best to ignore them, and just get on with asking interesting C
questions, and providing useful answers.

Please don't be discouraged from posting further questions here! There
are many experts here, on everything from Windows C programming to
embedded C programming, all the way through POSIX network development,
Linux kernel development, and everything else you can imagine. Whatever
question you come up with, there's someone here who'll know the answer.
Some people will refuse to tell you the answer, for the reasons
discussed above. But the best way to encourage more people to answer
questions in their fields of expertise is by building a positive
atmosphere where people ask C-related questions freely and frankly, and
where as many of those questions as possible get useful answers.

Hear, Hear!!!

[Keith Thompson]

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
[...]

Please don't be discouraged from posting further questions here! There
are many experts here, on everything from Windows C programming to
embedded C programming, all the way through POSIX network development,
Linux kernel development, and everything else you can imagine. Whatever
question you come up with, there's someone here who'll know the answer.
Some people will refuse to tell you the answer, for the reasons
discussed above. But the best way to encourage more people to answer
questions in their fields of expertise is by building a positive
atmosphere where people ask C-related questions freely and frankly, and
where as many of those questions as possible get useful answers.

(The following is addressed to InuY4sha, the original poster.)

Yes, feel free to post questions *about the C programming language*
here. There's plenty to discuss (no, it's not just about casting
malloc and the return type of main).

Your question, however, was about the Linux kernel, not about the C
language. As such, it would have been perfectly appropriate in one of
the Linux newsgroups. I'm not sure which one would be best, but the
last time I looked my news server carried 700 newsgroup with "linux"
in their names. You happened to get an answer, which might even be
correct, but it's hard to tell since few of the people who read *this
newsgroup* are able to verify the information.

Not too long ago, a survey was carried out here in comp.lang.c on what
the topicality guidelines should be. The vast majority of those who
bothered to respond were in favor of keeping the guidelines fairly
strict. Antoninus Twink and the other trolls were perfectly free to
participate in the discussion, but they apparently prefer to whine
about others while making no real contribution themselves. (AT has
recently changed his tactics, but is no less a troll.)

The guidelines are not arbitrary. Some years ago, comp.lang.c++
started tolerating any posts that were even tangentially related to
C++, including system-specific discussions that would have yielded
better information in system-specific newsgroups. The result: the
groups signal-to-noise ratio dropped, many of the regulars who were
actually interested in discussing the language left, and the group
almost died. It recovered, but only after several years.

Suggested reading:

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/writing...off-topic.html

And you might want to take a look at Antoninus Twink's posting
history.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

Richard <de***@gmail.comwrites:
[...]

It would appear that you are the troll here. If you don't agree with ATs
posts then do not respond to them. This might surprise you - but you are
not in charge.

[...]

You obviously don't agree with my posts, and yet you seem to be unable
to resist the temptation to respond to them. Think about your own
signal-to-noise ratio before you criticize others.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <fu**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:

>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
[...]

>>Please don't be discouraged from posting further questions here! There
are many experts here, on everything from Windows C programming to
embedded C programming, all the way through POSIX network development,
Linux kernel development, and everything else you can imagine. Whatever
question you come up with, there's someone here who'll know the answer.
Some people will refuse to tell you the answer, for the reasons
discussed above. But the best way to encourage more people to answer
questions in their fields of expertise is by building a positive
atmosphere where people ask C-related questions freely and frankly, and
where as many of those questions as possible get useful answers.

(The following is addressed to InuY4sha, the original poster.)

InuY4sha, just ignore Keith Thompson. He is a lunatic. I think that
should be clear by now.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
[...]

>Please don't be discouraged from posting further questions here! There
are many experts here, on everything from Windows C programming to
embedded C programming, all the way through POSIX network development,
Linux kernel development, and everything else you can imagine. Whatever
question you come up with, there's someone here who'll know the answer.
Some people will refuse to tell you the answer, for the reasons
discussed above. But the best way to encourage more people to answer
questions in their fields of expertise is by building a positive
atmosphere where people ask C-related questions freely and frankly, and
where as many of those questions as possible get useful answers.

(The following is addressed to InuY4sha, the original poster.)

Yes, feel free to post questions *about the C programming language*
here. There's plenty to discuss (no, it's not just about casting
malloc and the return type of main).

No, but as AT pointed out, CLC is unique in that the only things that
are "on-topic" are precisely what is in the FAQ. So, in any other
group the point of the FAQ is to list the things that are decided so
that we don't have to talk about them - i.e., we are free to discuss
other things. This is quite liberating. In CLC, the things in the FAQ
(and I include "the standard" as essentially part of the FAQ - i.e., it
is part of the exisitng body of text) are the only things that can be
discussed. Strange, but true...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>Richard <de***@gmail.comwrites:
[...]

>It would appear that you are the troll here. If you don't agree with ATs
posts then do not respond to them. This might surprise you - but you are
not in charge.

[...]

You obviously don't agree with my posts, and yet you seem to be unable
to resist the temptation to respond to them. Think about your own
signal-to-noise ratio before you criticize others.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <fu**********@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote:

>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>>Richard <de***@gmail.comwrites:

[...]

>Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Here we have a case of the pan accusing the pot of calling the kettle
black.

-- Richard
--
:wq