Re: david the gnome - with yet another non-Debian question?
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:11:11AM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:27:32PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
> > ... this has nothing to do with Debian! Why aren't all
> > these non-Debian specific questions filling my mailbox sent to where
> > they ought to be sent? Why is debian-user full of Netscape bookmarks
[snip]
> 4) with apt-get, you expect /debian/ users to have trouble? :)
Ehhhh? I don't know what that means.
> -3) debian-user still is unmoderated, so folks like s.lamb get through :)
I didn't mean to single anyone out. His "off-topic" question was just
another in a very long line of others just like it or worse.
> so maybe we need a new list
>
> debian-only@lists.debian.org
I'd go for a debian-user_moderated in a heartbeat.
My real complaint is that I don't have time to wade through ca. 200
mails a day from this group. I'm trying to learn something from
comp.lang.perl.misc too, and fulfill a contract for a client. Hitting
d 200 times just to pare down debian-user is a waste. I'd like to
continue on the list, but the price is enormous considering my limited
amount of free time.
Most of these questions should be going to comp.os.linux.*, but
everyone's terrified of spammers nowadays so they avoid Usenet. I
take great joy in hunting down and reporting spammers (it's
educational!), so I have no qualms about posting to Usenet.
If your question is Debian specific, or even closely related to Debian
or .deb packages or how Debian packages are configured, debian-user is
the right place to be. If your problem is (eg.) that your mouse isn't
detected correctly by XFree86 or gpm is clashing with X, then you
shouldn't be posting to debian-user. That's not a Debian question,
it's a generic Linux related question, hence comp.os.linux.*
My C$0.02 ...
--
keelingNO@SPAM.spots.ab.ca (Stephen) TopQuark Software & Serv. Enquire within.
[sed 's/NO@SPAM./@/g'] Contract programmer, server bum.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Reply to: