[sf-lug] how to ask questions the ... (was: debian vs ubuntu question)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):

> >From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> >Subject: Re: [sf-lug] debian vs ubuntu question
> >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:42:48 -0800
> 
> >The price of not doing that is that you answer theoretical questions and
> >(in effect) fail to give good advice because the _real_ issue wasn't
> >addressed.  And I long ago got tired of those wastes of time.
> 
> Well, probably mostly so ... give or take, ... there are advantages and
> disadvantages to both.  Likely the weaker "argument", but to those
> counter-points:
> o may answer a different/broader question, which may be of interest to
>   some/others (possibly even more so - but not so likely)
> o feedback loop - especially where person(s) have repeatedly been informed
>   of how to better / more properly ask the questions, rather than repeatedly
>   hand-hold / coddle, and lead them through to try and tease much of the
>   relevant bits/context out of them, instead, reply specifically and
>   exactly to exactly what they asked.  That may help nudge them into
>   asking better questions to start with - rather than being an excessively
>   nearly-interactive tease each relevant bit out of them.  Others may also
>   learn from that (notably how to (better) ask - and not, and practical
>   implications thereof).  So, as to whether that works out better /
>   more efficient on the longer run, quite debatable, but it very well
>   could work better longer-term.  And maybe I also answer what's asked
>   to entertain myself :-) ... so ... "waste"? ... also debatable.

Let's get back to the specific example, shall we?

Jim asked:  

Subject:  Debian vs. Ubuntu question
Text:  'Does the current release of Debian have {none,some,all} of the
problems in Ubuntu 18.04?'

You disregarded any nuance or background and gave the only conceivable
answer, the one that could be confidently predicted by absolutely
anyone: some.  And then stopped, mission accomplished.  (You also threw
in a few lines of surrounding basic information that can be gleaned in
about 30 seconds on Wikipedia or elsewhere -- based on Debian, some
differences, stuff, stuff, end.)

Nobody at that point understood anything, realistically, that was not
totally obvious before (and a 'different/broader question' hadn't been
answered).  Yet, plainly Jim wasn't asking for no reason, so shouldn't
the immediate concern, if seeking to avoid waste of time, be to wonder
what was this _really_ about?

Your second counter-point amounts to 'A pointless question is best
addressed by giving an exactly correct and pointless answer.'  This
appears to be a common attitude among technogeeks, but, if you think
this in any way leads to better communication, I submit that you haven't
paid attention to what happens when a technogeeks gives one of those.
News flash:  No, that isn't teaching better interaction with the online
community.  It's just a complicated way of deflecting.

An even more terse and Zen-based equivalent would have been to say 'Mu'
(i.e., your question rests on an incorrect assumption and therefore
cannot rightfully be answered as stated, that assumption being that your
Ubuntu 18.04 LTS spontaneously broke your wireless configuration).  And
that wouldn't have been useful, either.

In Jim's case, it took roughtly zero detective work to guess what it was
really about.  So, I submit, it IMO was not empathetic to ignore that, and
was The Right Thing to instead shine light on the iceberg's base.

Giving the user what he/she asked for good'n'hard is Not Nice, Michael.