home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!duke!news.duke.edu!acpub.duke.edu!bigham
- From: bigham@acpub.duke.edu (Scott Bigham)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: About the 'F' in RTFM
- Message-ID: <4160@news.duke.edu>
- Date: 29 Jul 92 23:17:51 GMT
- References: <1992Jul17.202448.19848@wyvern.tw> <1992Jul23.155203.11430@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Jul26.190928.20817@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Sender: news@news.duke.edu
- Organization: n. Arrangement in an orderly or logical fashion. See "miracle".
- Lines: 24
- Nntp-Posting-Host: teer9.acpub.duke.edu
-
- From the Holy Book of <1992Jul26.190928.20817@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- as spake by mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) :
-
- >In <1992Jul23.155203.11430@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
-
- >>The usual interpretation of the F is an accurate description of the quality
- >>of most UNIX manuals. The correct response to `RTFM' is "I *did* read it,
- >>and it didn't answer the question I wanted answered."
-
- >At which point, of course, you reach up, pull down the appropriate
- >manual, open it up, drop it in front of them and point. They then
- >say, "Oh," and walk away looking sheeplike.
-
- Yeah, if they're sheep. My usual response at this point is, "Yes, I
- read that, and it doesn't answer my question. I also read the next
- three manuals on your shelf and they don't answer my question either.
- If they did, I wouldn't be here asking you, now would I?"
-
- -sbigham
- --
- Scott Bigham | The opinions expressed above are
- bigham@hercules.acpub.duke.edu | (c) 1992 Hacker Ltd. and cannot be
- | copied or distributed without a
- | Darn Good Reason(tm).
-