NANOG-futures

[Robert E. Seastrom]

By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.

Congratulations to both of you.

                                        ---Rob

Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org> writes:

>> then you are at a loss.  we were all younger and less all-knowing once
>> upon a time.  the book from which i learned unix was named laura
>> freedman, as there were no printed ones, other than man pages, at the
>> time.  if she was as unhelpful as some folk here, i might not be
>> bothering you today.  of course, this might be a feature, not a bug.
> This is a terrible analogy but:
>
> Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything 
> he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not. 
> Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand 
> that the manufacturer fix things that don't work because you didn't read 
> the manual? Of course not.
>
> Both of these questions were easily answered by the simplest of Google 
> searches. If you don't ask people to make even a cursory attempt at 
> finding the answer for themselves then you are not helping them and you 
> are inviting a wholesale loss in content quality.
>
>> >> NANOG is for large network oeprators
>> you're right.  that text should be changed, cause it just ain't true any
>> more.  in fact, i don't remember when it was true.  jhawk was wishing.
> Then I hope it does get changed.
>
>>> Cisco is a commonly used platform and anyone who asks a question about
>>> Cisco is told to go ask on a Cisco list.
>> as did another poster, we generally try to actually answer the question
>> as well as pointing to where there is more domain-specific info.
> This same person asked another question that was easily answered by a bit 
> of searching and was far beneath the level I think this list should be 
> operating at.
>
>>> If you want NANOG to become the go to list for people who don't
>>> understand basic networking then I will happily go home.
>> i think it's for all of us.
> I've never heard anyone say that about NANOG. This was always a list for 
> people discussing issues relevant to large networks. Issues like the size 
> of the DFZ and the problems with route churn versus addresses exhaustion.
> If, however, that is no longer how the MLC sees the list then I will shut 
> up.
>
>>> Funny- my first response was polite
>> and had zero operational content
> It was my hope that by posting my response to the list we could avoid 
> having lots of people answer. Alas that seems to have failed.
>
> If you disagreed with my post it would have been incredibly easy to say "I 
> disagree- I think this is a relevant topic and here's some good resources 
> for Ann to check out." Instead, your response also included no technical 
> content AND was sarcastic.
>
> If I was wrong about what's now considered relevant on the NANOG list then 
> I apologize.
>
> -Don
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures