Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #6608 > unrolled thread

reading from a socket

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  reading from a socket Steve Richter <stephenrichter@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 06:27 -0700
    Re: reading from a socket Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-22 15:32 +0200
      Re: reading from a socket Steve Richter <stephenrichter@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 06:38 -0700
        Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 08:15 -0700
          Re: reading from a socket John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-22 15:33 +0000
            Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 08:55 -0700
              Re: reading from a socket John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-22 17:38 +0000
                Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 11:00 -0700
                  Re: reading from a socket John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-22 18:16 +0000
                    Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 11:30 -0700
                      Re: reading from a socket John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-22 18:51 +0000
                        Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 11:57 -0700
                      Re: reading from a socket Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 13:03 -0700
                        Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 13:09 -0700
                          Re: reading from a socket Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 18:18 -0500
                        Re: reading from a socket gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-22 20:43 +0000
                        Re: reading from a socket Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-23 21:50 -0700
                    Re: reading from a socket pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-22 20:52 +0000
                      Re: reading from a socket Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-23 08:39 +0100
                      Re: reading from a socket James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-23 06:45 -0400
              Re: reading from a socket Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-22 20:51 -0400
                Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:41 -0700
          Re: reading from a socket Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 09:17 -0700
            Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 09:29 -0700
              Re: reading from a socket John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-06-22 16:51 +0000
              Re: reading from a socket Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-22 17:54 +0100
                Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 10:51 -0700
                  Re: reading from a socket Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-22 18:29 +0000
                    Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 11:36 -0700
                      Re: reading from a socket Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-23 12:02 +0200
                        Re: reading from a socket Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-23 10:08 +0000
                          Re: reading from a socket Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-23 08:27 -0700
                        Re: reading from a socket James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-23 06:51 -0400
                  Re: reading from a socket Tom St Denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-06-22 11:34 -0700
                    Re: reading from a socket BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 11:43 -0700
                      Re: reading from a socket Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-22 12:56 -0700
                        Re: reading from a socket gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-22 20:47 +0000
                OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:58 +0000
                  Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-22 13:34 -0700
                    Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-06-22 16:14 -0500
                  Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-22 21:55 +0100
                  Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-06-22 16:11 -0500
                    Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 17:05 +0000
                      Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 11:28 -0700
                  Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-23 21:58 -0700
                    Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 00:33 -0700
                      Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-24 03:07 -0700
                        Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 10:32 -0700
                          Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-06-24 11:40 -0700
                            Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-24 20:23 +0000
                          Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-24 12:17 -0700
                          Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-24 21:49 +0100
                      Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-24 19:39 +0000
                        Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 13:30 -0700
                          Re: OT "or such" (was Re: reading from a socket) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-24 22:48 +0000
    Re: reading from a socket "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-22 22:40 +0200
      Re: reading from a socket "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-23 09:03 +0200
    Re: reading from a socket Vinicio Flores <vfloreshdz@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 19:32 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#6608 — reading from a socket

when a client reads from a socket, how does it know the server has
completed sending and is itself currently blocking on a read from the
client?

I am writing a small ftp client in C for the IBM AS400 using the UNIX
APIs. When the client code connects to the FTP server it reads back
the initial welcome messages. My code reads from the server, gets
some /r terminated messages. Reads again and gets more /r terminated
welcome messages. Then reads a 3rd time and blocks because there is
nothing more to read.  What in the socket protocol tells me the 3rd
read is going to block?

thanks,

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6609

Steve Richter wrote:

> when a client reads from a socket, how does it know the server has
> completed sending and is itself currently blocking on a read from the
> client?
> 
> I am writing a small ftp client in C for the IBM AS400 using the UNIX
> APIs.

Hello,

This is the wrong newsgroup. comp.unix.programmer is the group you want.

Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6611

On Jun 22, 9:32 am, Noob <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Steve Richter wrote:
> > when a client reads from a socket, how does it know the server has
> > completed sending and is itself currently blocking on a read from the
> > client?
>
> > I am writing a small ftp client in C for the IBM AS400 using the UNIX
> > APIs.
>
> Hello,
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup. comp.unix.programmer is the group you want.
>
> Regards.

ok. reposted on comp.unix.programmer

thanks,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6614

On 6/22/2011 6:38 AM, Steve Richter wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:32 am, Noob<r...@127.0.0.1>  wrote:
>> Steve Richter wrote:
>>> when a client reads from a socket, how does it know the server has
>>> completed sending and is itself currently blocking on a read from the
>>> client?
>>
>>> I am writing a small ftp client in C for the IBM AS400 using the UNIX
>>> APIs.
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is the wrong newsgroup. comp.unix.programmer is the group you want.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> ok. reposted on comp.unix.programmer
>

yep... because for who knows what reason, the people here generally 
exclude/reject anything not related to the C standard, and most topics 
related to actually using the language (which necessarily either involve 
OS-specific details, or other details not directly revolving around the 
C standard...).

in a way it is silly/stupid, but whatever...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6616

In <itt15q$64k$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:

> yep... because for who knows what reason, the people here generally 
> exclude/reject anything not related to the C standard, and most topics 
> related to actually using the language (which necessarily either involve 
> OS-specific details, or other details not directly revolving around the 
> C standard...).

> in a way it is silly/stupid, but whatever...

It is not "silly" to suggest that a discussion be taken to where the
experts are.

You can discuss retirement planning with your dentist, and he might
actually know something about it, but you'll likely get better advice
from a retirement palnner.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6620

On 6/22/2011 8:33 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> In<itt15q$64k$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>
>> yep... because for who knows what reason, the people here generally
>> exclude/reject anything not related to the C standard, and most topics
>> related to actually using the language (which necessarily either involve
>> OS-specific details, or other details not directly revolving around the
>> C standard...).
>
>> in a way it is silly/stupid, but whatever...
>
> It is not "silly" to suggest that a discussion be taken to where the
> experts are.
>
> You can discuss retirement planning with your dentist, and he might
> actually know something about it, but you'll likely get better advice
> from a retirement palnner.
>

except when asking questions that are sufficiently generic to where most 
people will know the answer (unless they live in a hole or 
something...), or which are not strictly topical in any relevant newsgroup.

it is silly that people start waving "off topic" around as soon as the 
conversation goes outside "well, the C standard says this..." and random 
newbies doing Q/A about newbie issues related to the C standard ("why 
cast pointer between incompatible types no work?...", ...).

the only real sane explanation is for volume control, but it smells like 
many people have sticks shoved somewhere, which isn't really ideal...

much like people making a big fuss over "little detail not guaranteed by 
the standard" even if "liable to work for any sane target one is 
probably going to want to build their code for", or putting up a giant 
fuss over "implementation details" related to how a given feature works 
on a given target. AKA: "ultra-portability", where portability 
requirements are assumed to extend beyond the N combinations of CPU and 
OS which are the stated targets of a given program (for example, if a 
program is only intended to be used on Windows on 32-bit x86, then picky 
little thins about "well, relying on 8-bit chars may not work on some 
esoteric embedded system"/... are not terribly relevant, since, after 
all, the code is only intended to run on a single target anyways, but 
issues about, say, behavior of WoW64/... may be relevant).


all of which are relevant to "actually using the language for writing 
actual code", which itself isn't topical, since apparently it is a group 
more for newbie Q/A than for anyone actually using the language for 
anything.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6633

In <itt3g6$bhq$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:

> it is silly that people start waving "off topic" around as soon as the 
> conversation goes outside "well, the C standard says this..." and random 
> newbies doing Q/A about newbie issues related to the C standard ("why 
> cast pointer between incompatible types no work?...", ...).

You seem to be assuming that people *could* have answered the question
but chose not to, simply because it's off-topic for this group.

If a socket expert was reading this group and saw the question, I'm sure
they could have answered it and set the message headers so the answer
would appear here and also in a socket-appropriate group, and any further
discussion would then continue in that other group.

However, in the absence of such an expert, the best answer we can give,
and the answer we DID give, is to go ask somewhere else.  Why is that so
bad?

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6635

On 6/22/2011 10:38 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> In<itt3g6$bhq$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>
>> it is silly that people start waving "off topic" around as soon as the
>> conversation goes outside "well, the C standard says this..." and random
>> newbies doing Q/A about newbie issues related to the C standard ("why
>> cast pointer between incompatible types no work?...", ...).
>
> You seem to be assuming that people *could* have answered the question
> but chose not to, simply because it's off-topic for this group.
>
> If a socket expert was reading this group and saw the question, I'm sure
> they could have answered it and set the message headers so the answer
> would appear here and also in a socket-appropriate group, and any further
> discussion would then continue in that other group.
>
> However, in the absence of such an expert, the best answer we can give,
> and the answer we DID give, is to go ask somewhere else.  Why is that so
> bad?
>

there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the 
"go elsewhere" comment.

this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.


also, one doesn't have to be a "socket expert" in order to provide an 
answer, as presumably nearly anyone who has run across the problem may 
provide a reasonable answer, and it is not exactly like sockets are some 
rare/esoteric topic.

it is like expecting there to be a "hash table expert" to provide 
answers about when and where to use a hash table.


one could have also, for example, posted a link to online information 
about the matter and possible solutions, drawing on the "expertise" of 
others, ...

or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6636

In <ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:

> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the 
> "go elsewhere" comment.

> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.

So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.

> also, one doesn't have to be a "socket expert" in order to provide an 
> answer, as presumably nearly anyone who has run across the problem may 
> provide a reasonable answer, and it is not exactly like sockets are some 
> rare/esoteric topic.

You may be reading too much into my use of the term "expert".  I simply
meant "someone qualified to answer the question."

Clearly, nobody fitting that description is reading this thread, so we
non-"experts" gave the best answer we could.  Would you rather we stay
silent and leave the poor poster with no help at all?

> it is like expecting there to be a "hash table expert" to provide 
> answers about when and where to use a hash table.

His question wasn't nearly that basic.  He wasn't asking anything like
"when and where to use" a socket.

> one could have also, for example, posted a link to online information 
> about the matter and possible solutions, drawing on the "expertise" of 

Surely the poster has done basic online research himself already?

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6638

On 6/22/2011 11:16 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> In<ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>
>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the
>> "go elsewhere" comment.
>
>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
>
> So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.
>

except, that it was not an answer, it was a dismissal...

"go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off, 
this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not 
automatically nullify its original intent (nor does giving a gracious 
response automatically mean that all is well). more just sort of some 
strange social practice of candy-coating everything...


>> also, one doesn't have to be a "socket expert" in order to provide an
>> answer, as presumably nearly anyone who has run across the problem may
>> provide a reasonable answer, and it is not exactly like sockets are some
>> rare/esoteric topic.
>
> You may be reading too much into my use of the term "expert".  I simply
> meant "someone qualified to answer the question."
>
> Clearly, nobody fitting that description is reading this thread, so we
> non-"experts" gave the best answer we could.  Would you rather we stay
> silent and leave the poor poster with no help at all?
>

I gave a partial answer as an example elsewhere in the thread, which was 
a comment about going and using non-blocking IO.


>> it is like expecting there to be a "hash table expert" to provide
>> answers about when and where to use a hash table.
>
> His question wasn't nearly that basic.  He wasn't asking anything like
> "when and where to use" a socket.
>

it was a "what do I do about this socket blocking?" issue, which is 
close enough...


>> one could have also, for example, posted a link to online information
>> about the matter and possible solutions, drawing on the "expertise" of
>
> Surely the poster has done basic online research himself already?
>

potentially, but many people ask on usenet before going and bothering to 
invoke the powers of Google or similar, or they are more just not 
certain what keywords to plug in to summon the desired answer...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6642

In <ittck1$jn$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:

> "go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off, 
> this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not 

I don't think it carries that subtext at all.  Instead it says, "We can't
answer your question, but those guys over there might know the answer."

> I gave a partial answer as an example elsewhere in the thread, which was 
> a comment about going and using non-blocking IO.

And that was in fact a wrong answer, as someone else (an "expert"!)
answered that the real problem was the the poster wasn't following the
FTP message protocol correctly.  It had nothing to do with blocking.

So we see first-hand the danger of answering technical questions when you
don't really know the answer -- and possibly don't even understand the
question.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6643

On 6/22/2011 11:51 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> In<ittck1$jn$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>
>> "go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off,
>> this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not
>
> I don't think it carries that subtext at all.  Instead it says, "We can't
> answer your question, but those guys over there might know the answer."
>

fair enough.

I had just seen it differently apparently...


>> I gave a partial answer as an example elsewhere in the thread, which was
>> a comment about going and using non-blocking IO.
>
> And that was in fact a wrong answer, as someone else (an "expert"!)
> answered that the real problem was the the poster wasn't following the
> FTP message protocol correctly.  It had nothing to do with blocking.
>
> So we see first-hand the danger of answering technical questions when you
> don't really know the answer -- and possibly don't even understand the
> question.
>

who knows?...

anyways (already mentioned elsewhere), I am generally ending the 
argument, as all this is not being terribly productive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6652

BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 6/22/2011 11:16 AM, John Gordon wrote:
>> In<ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the
>>> "go elsewhere" comment.
>>
>>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
>>
>> So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.
>>
>
> except, that it was not an answer, it was a dismissal...
>
> "go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off, 
> this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not 
> automatically nullify its original intent (nor does giving a gracious 
> response automatically mean that all is well). more just sort of some 
> strange social practice of candy-coating everything...

You have completely misinterpreted the response.  It was not a
dismissal.  It was not rude.  It was the most helpful answer that
could have possibly been given.

The OP has since posted his question to comp.unix.programmer.
He's gotten several replies, and apparently his question has now
been answered to his satisfaction.

Furthermore, before he posted to comp.unix.programmer, the OP
*thanked* the first responder for redirecting him.  Why are you
offended on his behalf?

I believe you owe "Noob" (the poster who suggested
comp.unix.programmer) an apology.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6654

On 6/22/2011 1:03 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
>> On 6/22/2011 11:16 AM, John Gordon wrote:
>>> In<ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net>   BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the
>>>> "go elsewhere" comment.
>>>
>>>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
>>>
>>> So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.
>>>
>>
>> except, that it was not an answer, it was a dismissal...
>>
>> "go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off,
>> this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not
>> automatically nullify its original intent (nor does giving a gracious
>> response automatically mean that all is well). more just sort of some
>> strange social practice of candy-coating everything...
>
> You have completely misinterpreted the response.  It was not a
> dismissal.  It was not rude.  It was the most helpful answer that
> could have possibly been given.
>
> The OP has since posted his question to comp.unix.programmer.
> He's gotten several replies, and apparently his question has now
> been answered to his satisfaction.
>
> Furthermore, before he posted to comp.unix.programmer, the OP
> *thanked* the first responder for redirecting him.  Why are you
> offended on his behalf?
>
> I believe you owe "Noob" (the poster who suggested
> comp.unix.programmer) an apology.
>

I realize my error now...

err, yeah...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6675

On 6/22/2011 3:09 PM, BGB wrote:
>
> I realize my error now...
>
> err, yeah...
>

Oh well.  And now: Back to your regularly-scheduled C.

   int main(void) {
       int socket = 0;
       return socket;
     }

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6660

In article <lnfwn1hbwi.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Android Kiki Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
...
>I believe you owe "Noob" (the poster who suggested
>comp.unix.programmer) an apology.

And I, among many others, think you are completely insane.

-- 

Some of the more common characteristics of Asperger syndrome include: 

* Inability to think in abstract ways (eg: puns, jokes, sarcasm, etc)
* Difficulties in empathising with others
* Problems with understanding another person's point of view
* Hampered conversational ability
* Problems with controlling feelings such as anger, depression 
    and anxiety
* Adherence to routines and schedules, and stress if expected routine 
    is disrupted
* Inability to manage appropriate social conduct
* Delayed understanding of sexual codes of conduct
* A narrow field of interests. For example a person with Asperger 
    syndrome may focus on learning all there is to know about 
    baseball statistics, politics or television shows.
* Anger and aggression when things do not happen as they want
* Sensitivity to criticism
* Eccentricity
* Behaviour varies from mildly unusual to quite aggressive 
    and difficult

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6782

In article <lnfwn1hbwi.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On 6/22/2011 11:16 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> >> In<ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net>  BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com>  writes:
> >>
> >>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the
> >>> "go elsewhere" comment.
> >>
> >>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
> >>
> >> So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.
> >>
> >
> > except, that it was not an answer, it was a dismissal...
> >
> > "go to this here other group" basically carries the subtext "screw off, 
> > this topic is OT here...". saying something more politely does not 
> > automatically nullify its original intent (nor does giving a gracious 
> > response automatically mean that all is well). more just sort of some 
> > strange social practice of candy-coating everything...
> 
> You have completely misinterpreted the response.  It was not a
> dismissal.  It was not rude.  It was the most helpful answer that
> could have possibly been given.
> 
> The OP has since posted his question to comp.unix.programmer.
> He's gotten several replies, and apparently his question has now
> been answered to his satisfaction.
> 
> Furthermore, before he posted to comp.unix.programmer, the OP
> *thanked* the first responder for redirecting him.  Why are you
> offended on his behalf?
> 
> I believe you owe "Noob" (the poster who suggested
> comp.unix.programmer) an apology.

BGB punctuates his prose with ellipses thus making
himself awkward to read. I addressed him on this topic
and he did not reply. For this reason alone I consider
him not worth addressing further.

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6662

In article <ittbh2$mb5$1@reader1.panix.com>,
John Gordon  <gordon@panix.com> wrote:
>In <ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the 
>> "go elsewhere" comment.
>
>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
>
>So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.

Let's try it this way: the less complete your answer, the longer you should
wait before posting it.

Post instantly if you understood the question's intent and context, and know
how to achieve the desired result.

If you have a pretty good idea what the answer is but you aren't sure and
can't test it, wait a while.

If you're just going to suggest repeating the question somewhere else (and
you aren't even a regular reader of the "somewhere else"), don't do it until
the question has aged 24 hours without being satisfied.

Once in a while some dumbass thinks Usenet is a real-time chat and responds
negatively to the "lack of replies" 5 minutes after his first post. When that
happens, everyone flame immediately :)

-- 
Alan Curry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6703

pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) writes:

> In article <ittbh2$mb5$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> John Gordon  <gordon@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <ittaqt$se2$1@news.albasani.net> BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> there was a delay of approx 5 minutes between the original post and the 
>>> "go elsewhere" comment.
>>
>>> this does seem a good amount like an automatic dismissal.
>>
>>So... it's bad to answer questions quickly?  I'm confused.
>
> Let's try it this way: the less complete your answer, the longer you should
> wait before posting it.
>
> Post instantly if you understood the question's intent and context, and know
> how to achieve the desired result.
>
> If you have a pretty good idea what the answer is but you aren't sure and
> can't test it, wait a while.
>
> If you're just going to suggest repeating the question somewhere else (and
> you aren't even a regular reader of the "somewhere else"), don't do it until
> the question has aged 24 hours without being satisfied.

I read Usenet two or three times a day.  That I should carefully check
time stamps, sequester away posts in a cellar to mature properly before
responding etc is just too much effort.  People will get whatever help
they want from me (not much, I admit) as I pass.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6717

On 06/22/2011 04:52 PM, Alan Curry wrote:
...
> If you're just going to suggest repeating the question somewhere else (and
> you aren't even a regular reader of the "somewhere else"), don't do it until
> the question has aged 24 hours without being satisfied.

I think that criterion is based upon the assumption that there's
something wrong with redirecting an inquiry to a more appropriate forum.
I think such redirection is not only a very good thing, for all
concerned, but that the sooner it's done, the better. The sooner it's
done, the sooner the OP will get useful answers. A quick re-direction
can also reduce the amount of OT discussions cluttering up the wrong
forum where the question was originally posted.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web