Re: flexfax: Hylafax rpm issues

[David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>]

> 
> 
>  > On the other hand, a lot of Linux users are from a plug and play mentality,
>  > and Red Hat are exploiting this, by making it easier and easier to install
>  > Linux without having enough knowledge to maintain it.  As a result, Red Hat,
>  > etc. get the benefits, but people on the traditional support groups start
> 
> You are essentially saying that let us keep installation of hylafax
> ( or all freeware) purposely difficult, so that it doesn't 
> attract every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who will bug the original
> authors with stupid questions. 

No.  I am saying that it is dishonest to make it easy to install and then
not also support it.  If, after you port it, you fend off all the FAQs
on the mailing list (and to some extent you, personally, are trying to do
this) that's OK, but if you don't put resources (which would be money
in a commercial environment) into supporting it, you are pushing your
costs onto someone else.  Saying that the packager is not responsible is
equivalent to passing the buck onto the mailing list.

Incidentally, high volumes of FAQs can make the original supporters of
a list abandon it, because it becomes difficult to extract the worthwhile
from the trivial.  This can have a double impact, because it means that
no-one is vetting answers for misunderstandings.

Microsoft style newsgroups tend to be even worse in this respect, multiple
cross posting to irrelevant groups and please email me I don't read the
group, and not checking the recent history for similar questions, seem
to be the norm, but Linux users seem to be coming somewhere in the middle.

There used to be a guideline not to ask questions in Linux about ports
of general internet software, but I feel that it might be an idea to
revise that position.

Incidentally, Linux has been getting a bad reputation in support newsgroups
for several years, not just since Red Hat became prominent.