Forum ettiquette

Booting, installing, newbie
Message
Author
User avatar
Béèm
Posts: 11763
Joined: Wed 22 Nov 2006, 00:47
Location: Brussels IBM Thinkpad R40, 256MB, 20GB, WiFi ipw2100. Frugal Lin'N'Win

#21 Post by Béèm »

jonyo wrote:
Béèm wrote:I would like to add another one.
When someone references a link, please, out of courtesy, make it clickable.
I'd like to know why they are no longer automatically clickable, as they once were. :?
Me too, that relieves the burden of doing it manually.
Murga should know I suppose.
Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
[url=http://puppylinux.org/wikka/HomePage]Consult Wikka[/url]
Use peppyy's [url=http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html]puppysearch[/url]

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#22 Post by Flash »

It changed the last time John updated the forum software and I can't see any way to change it back. You'll just have to remember to do it manually. :oops:

There are two possibilities. If you want to make a URL clickable, all you have to do is highlight the URL in the compose window, then click the "URL" button above the compose window. If it's a word or phrase you want to make clickable then there's another step. You highlight the word or phrase in the compose window, click the "URL" button, then go back in the compose window and add = followed by the URL, inside the brackets. You can see what I mean by clicking the "quote" button of a post with a clickable word or phrase in it.

User avatar
nipper
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2008, 16:08

#23 Post by nipper »

I'm going to express my opinion and it is probably not going to make me popular. I'm not evangelical about this opinion but it is the way I choose to operate.

The way Flash described it is fine, when one puts a URL as a link. However it's possible to give one of those clickable links a name, for instance "click me" and then that is what is displayed. It's probably correct that a lot of people click links without examining where the link, which they have seen as a name, is actually going. It's fairly trivial then to craft a link that presents itself as something other than what it actually is. For example, give the link a name of the form of a URL, http://...etc. and then you have a link that goes somewhere different from where it presents. Many clickers would not notice.

This is not a big security risk, however there is always the choice between what is convenient and security. I choose to post my URLs as plain text, they are what they spell. I realise that means people have to cut-and-paste, however, I think cut-and-paste is a skill that is useful and if someone doesn't know how, it should be possible to help them learn.

Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing anyone on the forum of any nefarious activity or dishonesty. I wonder though, do the moderators have enough time to follow all links presented in posts, perhaps they do, in which case the scenario I presented isn't likely.

So, for me, it is not a case of discourtesy. I choose to present my URLs as plain text. I see nothing wrong with telling someone how to craft the tags, if they ask, ...if they ask, not just because you like it that way. I have not nor will not try to change your behaviour, you do things your way and I will do things mine. And as I have stated previously, if the forum guidelines change, I will abide by the standard and not post URLs in plain text.

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#24 Post by Pizzasgood »

Clickable links are much more convenient for me. Reason: I can middle-click it to immediately open a background tab, with a single action (or left-click for a foreground tab). If I have to copy-paste, that means I have to double-click the URL to select it, then click the "new tab" button (or press ctrl-t), then middle click on the little icon in the left part of the URL bar. Then, if I wanted to read that tab later, I have to navigate back to the original tab (which could involve scrolling my mousewheel to scroll through the 20+ tabs I might have open). So that's between four and thirty actions, depending on how you count. Taking the optimistic outlook, that's still four times as much work as just middle-clicking a link.

Also, clickable links are much easier to notice at a glance than plaintext.

I'm not complaining or requesting that other people do what I do. Just explaining my viewpoint. IMHO, one of the biggest problems in the world aside from greed and hate is the "my Way is the Only Way" school of thought.

If I have to spend four times as much effort on certain links, so be it. Not the biggest issue in my life :lol:
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
Béèm
Posts: 11763
Joined: Wed 22 Nov 2006, 00:47
Location: Brussels IBM Thinkpad R40, 256MB, 20GB, WiFi ipw2100. Frugal Lin'N'Win

#25 Post by Béèm »

Flash wrote:It changed the last time John updated the forum software and I can't see any way to change it back. You'll just have to remember to do it manually. :oops:

There are two possibilities. If you want to make a URL clickable, all you have to do is highlight the URL in the compose window, then click the "URL" button above the compose window. If it's a word or phrase you want to make clickable then there's another step. You highlight the word or phrase in the compose window, click the "URL" button, then go back in the compose window and add = followed by the URL, inside the brackets. You can see what I mean by clicking the "quote" button of a post with a clickable word or phrase in it.
OK, that's a pity and we'll have to live with it.
Reminding how to make a clickable is a good idea. I think most of the time doing, becoming an automatism already.
Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
[url=http://puppylinux.org/wikka/HomePage]Consult Wikka[/url]
Use peppyy's [url=http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html]puppysearch[/url]

jonyo

#26 Post by jonyo »

I doubt that reminders'll work. It's not working for posting pix that are too big, or url's that are too long.

koolie
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon 12 Mar 2007, 06:38

#27 Post by koolie »

While the ideal situation would be a return to the way things were before the forum update,
there is another very acceptable way of handling this, and that is with the "Direct Link" Firefox extension...

Highlight URL...
right-click on it...
DirectLink>open...
opens in new tab.

Very handy on lots of websites where links are not clickable.
Works well in all versions of Firefox, Swiftfox, and BonEcho.
Should work with all Mozilla browsers.

There is also "Plain Text to Link" which does similar and more.
I use both. Both good.

Isis
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun 18 May 2008, 03:41

Thanks!

#28 Post by Isis »

Nathan F wrote:"Read the F*ing Manual"
Thank you for the explaination. I offer you another reason to be kind: I have a learning disability that makes it difficult if not impossible, to learn anything by reading alone and usually have to be shown "how-to". :oops: I doubt I am the only one.

Does anyone know where to find a glossary of terms of the secret language (lingo) of Linux?

User avatar
alienjeff
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat 08 Jul 2006, 20:19
Location: Winsted, CT - USA

#29 Post by alienjeff »

Isis wrote:Does anyone know where to find a glossary of terms of the secret language (lingo) of Linux?
...so close
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#30 Post by WhoDo »

alienjeff wrote:
Isis wrote:Does anyone know where to find a glossary of terms of the secret language (lingo) of Linux?
...so close
AJ, sometimes you crack me up! :lol:
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

reborn
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed 30 Jul 2008, 07:44
Location: Turgutreis, Turkey

#31 Post by reborn »

While the ideal situation would be a return to the way things were before the forum update,
there is another very acceptable way of handling this, and that is with the "Direct Link" Firefox extension...
And in Opera 9.50 you can - highlight link then right click and select 'Go To Web Address' - opens in new tab.

You could put text urls in a different colour to attract the readers attention

muggins
Posts: 6724
Joined: Fri 20 Jan 2006, 10:44
Location: hobart

#32 Post by muggins »

Although preferring a clickable link, the sequence of Highlight->Control+c->Control+t->Control+v isn't that much effort either.

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#33 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
I would just like to add, we should if possible, make the answer as simple as possible. Ive seen many cases where the answer given was over complicated, and the same results could be achieved through a few clicks in the GUI.
If the answer has "Open a console" in it, you`ve lost half of them already.

Bruce B

#34 Post by Bruce B »

puppyluvr wrote::D Hello,
I would just like to add, we should if possible, make the answer as simple as possible. Ive seen many cases where the answer given was over complicated, and the same results could be achieved through a few clicks in the GUI.
If the answer has "Open a console" in it, you`ve lost half of them already.
Linux is a command line operating system. Without the command line and its shell, there would be no GUI or console to complain about. No one would get lost, nothing would be over complicated, it just wouldn't exist.

A few lines below is an example of something I posted today, only a snippet of a longer post.

Another poster already posted a good solution using an application that needs an NT version of Windows. Is our question answered? Sure for Windows users willing to install Windows software to solve Linux problems, which by the way, already have the software installed.

Neglect Linux users? I don't want to.

I could have made the answer more simple, but I answered in some detail, but I really don't think as much as I could have.
  • A Linux solution is as follows:

    dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb


    Where /dev/sda is the unmounted source
    Where /dev/sdb is the unmounted target
    Where /dev/sdb is the same size or slightly larger, ideally the same size and even the same make and model.

    The default sector by sector copy size is 512 bytes and takes longer than if you specify a larger size using the bs= command at the end of your command string. You can increase the speed of the copy by multiplying 512 by powers of 2 Being conservative in how I do things, I'd probably stop at 8192 or 16384. Usually, I just let it run its course at default values.

    If you want to restore the device you reverse the process.
Would a simple answer have been better than the one I gave?

-------------------------

Puppy has a program call Pudd Copy Drive / Partition

In this case we want a drive copy.

Could you just say 'Pudd' and feel you did a good job? Challenge yourself to explain how to do the drive copy in Pudd with sufficient detail that the user can more or less just follow your instructions. Then we can do a word count.


--------------------------

It is not easier for me to give details, explanations and alternatives as I did in that post. It takes more time. It's harder. I'm trying to give better service.

I generally feel I'm dealing with intelligent people. People smart enough to open a terminal emulator and type in commands and hit the enter key.

I've never had anyone I was helping, that I can remember tell me I've lost them by the CLI, and I give the commands for them to type. An ABC type of thing. We've all had a hard time helping people. Please affirm what you assert: If the answer has "Open a console" in it, you`ve lost half of them already.

Absent any significant feedback along those lines, I think the assertion has little or no merit. Maybe doing something on a console would lose you. But your assertion has nothing to do with you. It specifically states 'them', meaning others. ( 1/2 of them )

If your assertion is challenged. I think you would have to support it by examples. Additionally, we cannot omit instances of when people didn't understand what they were doing with a GUI utility.

Examples: How do I do change an Icon? How do I burn a CD-ROM? How do I change themes? X won't start. How do I change wallpapers? Of course people get lost trying to figure things out with GUI programs.

Sometimes there is a CLI answer and sometimes there is a GUI answer. Today I gave this GUI answer:
  • As far as image advertising, the vast majority of them will disappear simply by configuring SeaMonkey not to load remote images.

    This is something any user can do an a few seconds.

    Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy & Security -> Images

    Accept images that come from originating server only

I try and give answers appropriate to the situation. This is shown by examples I posted today. A GUI answer to the exclusion of a CLI answer doesn't seem appropriate to me as a rule for forum helpers to go by.

User avatar
alienjeff
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat 08 Jul 2006, 20:19
Location: Winsted, CT - USA

#35 Post by alienjeff »

puppyluvr wrote:I would just like to add, we should if possible, make the answer as simple as possible.
You mean like "switch to Ewwbuntu" or "go back to Windows?" ;)

But seriously, there are fine lines between an answer being too brief, just right, and overblown. Hopefully you're not leaning towards legislating how forum volunteers reply to requests for help.
Ive seen many cases where the answer given was over complicated, and the same results could be achieved through a few clicks in the GUI.
In some cases this is quite true. On other cases, the shortest path is via the command line. And it's important to remember:

1) not all console-based "fixes" have GUIs,

2) quite often "a few clicks in the GUI" is much more involved to explain in writing than the command line explanation.
If the answer has "Open a console" in it, you`ve lost half of them already.
Like it or not, this "mortality rate," for lack of a better term, is what it is. Continual over-"GUification" (over being the key word) of an OS will ultimately increase the mortality rate. The sooner a user learns that the CLI is his/her friend and that the real power is via the CLI and not the GUI, the sooner the user can really use the OS, and not the other way around.

And the sooner the user is helping a new wave of newbs.
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]

User avatar
shroomy_bee
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2008, 16:54
Contact:

#36 Post by shroomy_bee »

It's true the CLI puts some people off - but.....it really shouldn't. I don't think anyone should ever modify what advice they want to give towards satisfying a certain attitude; that kind of approach never works out well in any system. And it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere - you don't get people asking how to fix their cars then complaining they would have to use special tools to do it.

Besides, to open the CLI you can click on a GUI icon/menu item anyway - maybe sell it to them that way.

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#37 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,

OK, perhaps I need to restate my case, as I seem to have missed my point.. I am all for the CLI, and believe that those answers are absolutely necessary. How else are we going to learn? 9 months ago I had never heard of Linux, well I had heard the word, but thats about it. Those are the shoes I try to "put on" when I answer questions. The Linux CLI scared the crap out of me. And I was very familiar with DOS, QB....ect. So its not like Id never seen a command line before. Im certainly NOT suggesting that is the wrong approach, only that the "less advanced" options, where available, be offered as well. Many answers I have gotten have gone over my head, (which, undoubtedly, forced me to learn), but I found myself hesitant to "repeat the question" because I didnt understand the answer. So, I want to offer the "point and click" alternative whenever possible. Linux can be (and is) much more "user friendly" to noobies like me than people think. But often, the "easy" answer isnt given. Perhaps people feel the problem is solved with the CLI answer, so why post the GUI answer ( and these are just generalizations, sometimes the answer is a little of both). I have found Puppy to be the easieat distro to "ease you in" to the Linux CLI and file structure, and now, after some time, I find it to be easier and more intuitive by far. But you dont erase years in months.
Also, as I am involved with the Puppy 400 manual, I would love to see as many of the "easy" answers as I can incorperated there. Thats why I got involved in the first place, was I saw the need for a "noob" perspective.
And, Im sorry, but some people just dont want to know. They want something that does what Windoze does, but better and safer. Puppy can easily provide that, and a lot more. Im not trying to "dumb it down", I just want to give the easy answer first, and then if something more "in depth" is required, that answer is there as well. I totally agree that the CLI is faster and more effective. And "noobies" like me, do eventually gain the confidence to use it. But Im trying to cater to the "brand new" user. Next month they may be giving me and you pointers, but today, they just need an easy way to achieve what they are trying to do. A lot of distro`s forums have a "purist" feel to them, like "If you cant use the CLI then PM me when you learn" kind of thing. Im just trying to make Puppy as easy to migrate to as possible. A lot of forun readers never post, and if an easy answer is posted, who knows how many "lurkers", who are not CLI friendly ,it will help get started. And we all know, once you start.......
Hopefully you're not leaning towards legislating how forum volunteers reply to requests for help.
@Jeff.....Im just trying to help poor noobies like me....I would never try to impose my opinions on anyone here. ( Im way underqualified ) ..and am a nobody on this forum anyhow.
Oh yea, for you...
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#38 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
Firstly, my answer was based on user comments concerning the manual,
I offer this example of what I mean:

http://www.puppylinux.org/manuals/puppy ... al-petgets

The easy answer is "Click on it"...
The manual is full of these, but I fear to change much besides updating the pictures, as I do NOT want to overstep my limits, or appear to "legislate" anything.
My response is based on user questions and comments.
Maybe the CLI/GUI references were misleading, maybe easy/complicated would have been better.
GUI answers can be overcomplicated as well.
Im not picking on the CLI, just overcomplication..
Many times the CLI answer is the easist and best way, and should be the
first response given.
I seem to have offended, for which I am terribly sorry. It was never my intent to criticize anyones responses, or to attempt to instill "my way" on anyone. I AM A NOOB TOO. But if I can see an easier answer, I try to give it. Please bear in mind that I give GUI answers because I DONT ALWAYS KNOW the CLI answers. I just try to help others like me..
That 3 lines of text could start so much trouble...

@BruceB,
Guys like you are the backbone of Puppy, and your answers are like the Puppy Bible to guys like me. PLEASE do not let my uneducated comments affect the way you respond to anything. My answers and comments come from limited knowledge and experience. I have noticed a change in your responses, including references to this post. If this is a result of my (well intended) post, then I have done a terrible disservice to Puppy, and truely hope to rectify it. I would never want to do anything to hurt Puppy.
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Puppyluvr isnt just a name. I love puppy and devote WAY too much time to
it. (ask my wife) I may be obsessed, but Im learning... However, I would rather never post again than to have a negative effect on Puppy. And any change in your responses, caused be me, would be a terrible thing.
Bruce, I lack the experience/knowledge to "Put up" so perhaps I should "shut up".
I am humbled ...Please forgive my impudence.......

Otherwise:
I should be taken out back, and decompiled.

Please respond to me, PM me, EMail me, ect...
...Jay.....

Bruce B

#39 Post by Bruce B »

Puppyluvr,

There are not any more problems or disputes to deal with. Thanks to you. And you over flattered me.

We live in a GUI world and it's becoming more that way.

People who are solving problems in the way of building distros, writing GUI utilities and so on are all well versed in the use of the CLI.

I think if fair to say that scripts, which are command line instructions are the glue that holds Puppy together.

I learned DOS and a version of Unix with no GUI. With those under my belt, things like graphic layers and applications seemed fairly easy.

This knowledge laid a foundation where I feel I have control. I don't know what it is to only have control at the GUI level, but, I don't think computing would be near as fun or powerful as the computing I enjoy.

Best regards,

Bruce

reborn
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed 30 Jul 2008, 07:44
Location: Turgutreis, Turkey

#40 Post by reborn »

From my beginners point of view I would like to see both methods explained.

Coming from Windows the GUI method would let me do the task quickly. The CLI method would be, ultimately for me, satisfying - knowing how it's done at grass 'root' level - but will take time to learn.

Many years ago I used the DOS CLI alot, usually 4DOS to create batch files to carry out the tasks I wanted, the way I wanted them carried out, so I can see the advantages of the CLI. Many of todays Puppy converts from other operating systems have only ever had a GUI, so a CLI only answer might put them off.

For example, from the Arch Linux beginners Guide:-
The Arch Linux system is assembled by the user, from the shell, using basic command line tools. This is The Arch Way. Unlike the more rigid structures of other distributions and installers, there are no default environments nor configurations chosen for you. From the command line, you will add packages from the Arch repositories using the pacman tool via your internet connection and manually configure your installation until your system is customized to your requirements. This method allows for maximum flexibility, choice, and system resource control from the base up.

Arch Linux is aimed at GNU/Linux users who desire minimal 'code separation' from their machine.


I've filed this one away as a maybe future project - when I'm more conversant with CLI usage and Linux in general. By the way the heading of the above fragment was DON'T PANIC - I didn't, it was OOOOOPS! NOT YET.

reborn

Post Reply