Joe Smith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
So? What's wrong with that? Are you trying to get the logs to use the
local locale and zone?

Set LC_MESSAGES and TZ in whatever launches ftpd.

So? Use the ones that are in redhat, then!

By fixing it. What's the problem? It's really a very aggravating way of
stating a question that you have! You say you found the answer by
googling for it, so tell us it! What do you expect us to do? Go google
for it too? And you tell us that the config files talked about are not
in redhat! Are we supposed to read your mind to find out which files
you are talking about? And which files redhat do have on your system?
Tell us!

Peter

Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
So? He's talking about wu-ftpd! It has certain configuration files and
no others, and they will be lited in his redhat package manager.


It's a non-question. A more correct answer would be "mu". I am
asking him to provide a question to which one can provide a useful
answer.

No - the answer is the answer in google. Or don't you too understand
abstraction? People have mental powers that allow higher concepts, so
that when we know how to open a door, we don't ask how to turn the
doorknob on a new door we have never seen before. What we need to know
is what the answer in google is, because that is THE answer. It will
say "turn the doorknob". We can then ask him what his system files are,
and we can then translate the answer into an implementation procedure,
like "move your hand 4 inches forward 3 feet above the floor, and clasp
a round object ...".

It's not buried. I am trying to teach him to ask a proper question,
giving the proper information. That includes what he has found out,
what his system is like, and so on.

And what is that? I have no idea. That's because I give an answer, not
an implementation procedure. You too can learn the difference between
abstract and concrete.

Peter

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:00:12 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

That's a much better answer (unless RPM was not used when installing
wu-ftpd). Why did we have to pull teeth to get it out of you?

It *is* such a question, because a useful answer *was* provided. You
just like complaining that people should have done something on their
own before asking questions, but giving very little hint as to (a) what
that something is, or (b) why it's important.

That second point is critical. "The answer I found on Google is specific
to <some non-RH distro>," he thinks, "so it's useless." Telling him
flat-out that it may be a useful pointer to the RH-specific answer is
likely to be useful. Sallying him with a dozen variations of "you suck
at asking smart questions" is not, people being the emotional creatures
that they are.

Depending on how big the difference is between RedHat and whatever he
found on Google, this analogy may or may not hold water. "Turn the
doorknob" doesn't tell you how to open a sliding door with a latch, and
it certainly doesn't tell you that submarine hatches require a mil-spec
P-14 hexagonal wrench for safety and security reasons. Granted, the
difference in this case is probably not so extreme...

Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
You didn't. Read what I said above:

So? Use the ones that are in redhat, then!

He must use the config files he has to use. Nobody can say anything
different. It doesn't matter how he installed it. The config files will
be what the config files are in his installation and it's up to him to
tell us about them, since we're not there.

There is no specific question in "Can I correct this problem? How?".
The answer is "yes", and "by fixing it". When he says something that
contains data, we can move on. But there is no data provided and hence
I can provide no specific answer. I have to stay with generalities.

What is that "something"? I certainly don't know!

It isn't useless. There is usually nothing about Z (for Z = wu-ftpd
here) that is intrinsically specific to some distro.

There can be no substantial difference. wu-ftpd is wu-ftpd. Only the
placement and/or name of the config files will differ per compilation.

It's probably only a question of the directory the files are in, which
one would have thought a mullusc would have realized, given 5 seconds
thought. The point is that the guy is asking how to open a red door,
because he can only find instructions on how to open a white door on
google.


Peter

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:34:58 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

Imagine that I ask "where can I find the Butter Cow?" and I receive the
answer "in the United States". How is this answer useful? It's far too
large a search space to be practical.

(It also turns out to be ambiguous. The one I have in mind is the one
at the Ohio State Fair.)

He has said something that contains data, i.e. he has specified a symptom
for each of his two problems. Granted it's not enough data, but that's
where asking questions comes in. "Can you tell us X? It might allow us
to answer your question."

Then make an educated guess. If you can't make an educated guess, then
wait and see whether anyone else does.

I know it isn't useless; the point is that the OP probably /thought/ it
was useless, hence didn't bother including it.

And yet that's a daunting problem for people who are not (yet) accustomed
to hunting down this type of information. 'locate', 'rpm', et al. are
great tools, but they only benefit those who possess the appropriate
knowledge about them (e.g. that rpm is not just for installing/removing
packages, but can also tell you where all the pieces of a package are
to be found).

Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
But that's not the answer given. The answer is "at the Butter Cow's
house", as given. Now it's up to him to say what he means by "the
Butter Cow", and so on.

He has said (badly - it required my additional guesswork to say what he
was asking) what the symptom is. He has said he found the solution on
google but cannot apply it. We need to know what the soluion he found is,
and why he cannot apply it! His problem is that he cannot apply it, and
he has supplied no imformation that allows us to tell him why.

I told him what he needed to tell us (do you want me to quote myself
again!): what the solution he found on google was, and what the config
files for wu-ftpd on his syestem were.

There are too many possibilities. Why should I guess when he already
has the answer out of google and can tell us it! I don't even know from
him if wu-ftpd is logging directly or through syslogd, so that I can
find out where to apply the correction. (if he's talking about xferlog
it's direct, no? with the -l param). It seems to me that his whole
system must be set up for the wrong po messages and time zone if
wu-ftpd is giving out log files like that, but I don't know from his
description. Is he running it out of inetd or standalone?

Why should it be? The name and placement is not a part of the
functionality, and the functionality is what he is trying to influence.
This is a case of not being able to open the red door, given
instructions on how to open the white door.

He must know that! 10 years ago package managers were showing little
icons for each package installed, and when you clicked on them they
gave a list of files, and status. One would also hope that RHs man
pages were accurate.

I know what you are saying - that the guy is just walking round in a
hazy cloud. But that's what he can cure. He has the solution, and his
problem is the /personal/ one of perceiving it wrong.

Peter

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 07:42:13 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

The way to influence the functionality is to change the config
files. How is he supposed to change a config file without first
knowing its exact filename and directory location?

I /keep telling you/ that this analogy is flawed, because most of the
cases where you bring it up are /not/ so blindingly obvious as opening
doors. Why you keep insisting otherwise is beyond me.

You'd better qualify that statement. Package managers show that data
/if/ you ask for it, and /if/ you realize that you can still ask for it
post-install, and /if/ the package manager offers the option in the
first place. (Windows 2000's package manager doesn't give a list of
files. Before you dismiss this as a bogus example, remember that that's
where a fair number of users are coming from.)

Realizing that rpm can list files post-install is intuitively obvious
/after/ it's been pointed out. ("Oh yeah, it totally makes sense that
it would include that feature.") It is much less obvious before it's
been pointed out.

One would also hope that people read RH's man pages and understand
everything in them. Then again, I hope to inherit $47,000,000 from
a previously-unknown relative...

Speaking personally, I have neither the time nor the inclination to
inhale and retain /entire/ man pages. I prefer to know "enough", thus
optimizing the balance between knowledge and learning time. I would
be more inclined to devote learning time if I was employed as a sysadmin.

Your problem is that you usually say "You're wrong!" and stop there, as
if that alone will make the cloud go away.

Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Strawman. By finding it out. At least one must say that THAT is one's
difficulty!

Because it is obvious. It is unlikely (but possible) that anyone has
even changed the name of the config files when compiling wu-ftpd for
redhat. It is likely that they have changed the directory, possibly to
some subdir of /etc/ (probably called "wuftpd" of "ftpd"), but that's as
trivial as changing the colour of the door from red to white. Do you
get confused by walking into a shop called "circuit city" instead of
"computer city"? They both allow you to use your credit card and buy
computers because they are both computer shops, and they satisfy the
same functionality. The name is in itself irrelevant to the way you
deal with them - the aisle layout will be different. So what? Humans
cope with minor differences like placement because we are thinking
beings who deal in abstractions.

How about him telling us what the answer is and what his difficulty
with it was?

You don't have to realize, you have to click.

I had no idea that it even had a package manager. That wouldn't stop me
finding out that it does, or checking out what it does as soon as I
found it, btw.

It's completely obvious to anyone who looks. What can one say but
"look"?

One would hope that if they had a problem finding the config files,
they would look at RHs manpages as one of the sources that would tell
them where they had gone. Why would they care about anything else in
them?

If that doesn't work, they can use strace.

Then don't. Why should you? Nobody does that. Grep down to /FILES and
puum. Gaaaah ... my wuftpd has no FILES section. Well, grep for "config":

If the -a option is specified, the use of the ftpaccess(5)
configuration file is enabled.

If the -A option is specified, use of the ftpaccess(5) configuration
file is disabled. This is the default.


Zounds like ftpaccess will be useful. man ftpaccess. Grep "log". Personally
I'd go for:

log syslog+xferlog

Redirects the logging messages for incoming and out going
transfers to syslog. Wit

and let syslog worry about time and stuff.

Hey, did you know wuftpd does virtual servers? How cute.

It should. Knowing that you are wrong is the zeroth step you need to
take. It allows you to dispense with the arrogance that comes with
thinking you are right and the world is wrong, which annoys me
intensely.

Peter

On Friday, in article <kak3eb.u5g.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>
ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:

Can't see it myself. He gave background, explained his lack of
understanding, and posed the question. WTF is wrong with any of that?
--
Raj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"

Raj Rijhwani <raj@rijhwani.org> wrote:
What is wrong is that he tells us that he found the solution in google,
but doesn't tell us what it is, nor why he is unable to apply it, which
would enable us to enable him to fix his problem. As to his question,
it was a non-question.

Peter

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:34:20 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

I understand that annoyance, believe me. I also understand - because
dealing with cloudy thinkers is a significant part of my job description
- that your approach, which /should/ fix it, in fact does not. Most
people need it shown to them first, then stated in a less accusatory
fashion. ("That turns out not to be the case.")

Also, fairly often, a person knows they're overlooking something, but
has no idea what it is. Let's look at your suggested approach:

Change that to "look at rpm" (or, more generally, "look at tool X") and
you've got useful, substantive advice. Many people /don't/ look at
tool X, or not closely enough; they use it for task Y1, but it never
occurs to them that it might also be useful for task Y2, and so they
fail to discover the "how to use X to do Y2" section of the X manual.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 Peter T. Breuer wrote:
It shouldn't annoy you. Coz not all mean/imply/allude/insinuate that
they are right and the world is wrong. It maybe that their way of
expressing it is different. Even if they did, there is no way to find it
out without having several exchanges. For all you know they maybe right
under the given assumptions/conditions and you maybe the one who's
forgetting the 'zeroth' step.