DBD::Informix and comp.databases.informix

Dear Informix User, I've been justifiably chastised for being very grumpy when people post questions about DBD::Informix to comp.databases.informix -- I do get grumpy when people do that. There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: * a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. * a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking questions where the answer is in TFM? More complexly, I've just come across a new class of user for DBD::Informix. Up until now, people who were using DBD::Informix had also installed it, or they had easy access to the source code. Now I'm finding that there as some (potential) users who do not install DBD::Informix themselves, and hence do not have easy access to the source code. Since some of the documentation is not installed with the product (mainly because it only applies to a few circumstances), what about people who RTFM but do not read the correct TFM because they do not have direct access to the uninstalled documentation. Of course, all such users can get the source code (and it's the simple cop-out for me), but... Your thoughts, please - publicly or privately. -- Yours, Jonathan Leffler (Jonathan.Leffler@Informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix v1.00.PC1 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN "I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!" PS: S/N ratio = signal to noise ratio. Small values are bad; large values are good. Mostly, c.d.i has an acceptable S/N ration, but it is trending downwards, which is bad.

In article <8jgau9$479$1@news.xmission.com>, Jonathan Leffler <Jonathan.Leffler@informix.com> wrote: } } There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: } } * a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a } small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. } * a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, } specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be } subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. } } Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the } unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news } group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, } would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having } DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? I think it would. Many people aren't willing to get involved with mailing lists when they only have a few questions now and again. It's often hard to get your email address off of a mailing list once you're on it. Your ability to search the archives of the list (assuming it is archived at all) is often quite limited, as a result of software limitations, limits on how many months/years have been archived, and the like. If questions were fielded on c.d.i., the posts would get archived by, say, DejaNews, and be readily searchable by everyone. } Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious } question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking } questions where the answer is in TFM? If TFM were a bit more accessible with Informix, as in searchable online in HTML/XML/yadda^3 format rather than mongo 5+ MB .pdf files, all of which you have to have already downloaded, and are troublesome to search through, then the case for RTFM would be stronger. Of course everyone should learn to RTFM first and ask questions later, but if it's not even clear what FM to R, and you're in some netforsaken place with a 28.8 dialup... IMO this is a long tradition with Informix (I've been using it since 1988). The docs have always been of good quality, but have never been sufficiently online. You would get the whole set of manuals, but no UNIX-style plaintext manual pages as an online programming reference. You'd have to go to USENET to grab a copy of someone's FAQ instead, which was usually out of date w.r.t. the latest release of Informix. My $0.02, --Karl -- == Karl Wiebe == karl@dnai.com == "Order is a form of repetition compulsion" --Freud "Order is a form of repetition compulsion" --Freud "Order is a form of repetition compulsion" --Freud

I would prefer you drop the email biz and get on with a newsgrope method. I am happy to see other's emailings and responses, in public, and searchable. I cannot yet tell whether dbd is fully supported by informix or not...Does it come bundled and installable on any orderable CD at a particular cost? I have had so much difficulty getting it to work, and gave up, i wonder why, and am sure there are hundreds of people on this newsgroup, who have the answer, if they had the question... Jonathan Leffler wrote: > Dear Informix User, > > I've been justifiably chastised for being very grumpy when people post > questions about DBD::Informix to comp.databases.informix -- I do get > grumpy when people do that. > > There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: > > * a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a > small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. > * a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, > specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be > subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. > > Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the > unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news > group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, > would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having > DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? > > Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious > question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking > questions where the answer is in TFM? > > More complexly, I've just come across a new class of user for > DBD::Informix. Up until now, people who were using DBD::Informix had > also installed it, or they had easy access to the source code. Now I'm > finding that there as some (potential) users who do not install > DBD::Informix themselves, and hence do not have easy access to the > source code. Since some of the documentation is not installed with the > product (mainly because it only applies to a few circumstances), what > about people who RTFM but do not read the correct TFM because they do > not have direct access to the uninstalled documentation. Of course, all > such users can get the source code (and it's the simple cop-out for me), > but... > > Your thoughts, please - publicly or privately. > > -- > Yours, > Jonathan Leffler (Jonathan.Leffler@Informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> > Guardian of DBD::Informix v1.00.PC1 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN > "I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!" > > PS: S/N ratio = signal to noise ratio. Small values are bad; large > values are good. Mostly, c.d.i has an acceptable S/N ration, but it is > trending downwards, which is bad.

In article <8jgau9$479$1@news.xmission.com>, Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@informix.com> writes > >Dear Informix User, > >I've been justifiably chastised for being very grumpy when people post >questions about DBD::Informix to comp.databases.informix -- I do get >grumpy when people do that. > Ooooh! >There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: > >* a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a > small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. >* a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, > specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be > subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. > >Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the >unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news >group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, >would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having >DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? > Yes, please also create a fAQ which I can point to in the main FAQ! >Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious >question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking >questions where the answer is in TFM? > Quote the manual and where it is in the manual! >Your thoughts, please - publicly or privately. > -- David Williams

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Leffler Wrote: > > Dear Informix User, > > I've been justifiably chastised for being very grumpy when people post > questions about DBD::Informix to comp.databases.informix -- I do get > grumpy when people do that. > Dont get grumpy, get even ;-} > There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: > > * a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a > small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. > * a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, > specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be > subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. > It might be that people dont know where to find the document wherein this is described - for the record one would type: perldoc DBD::Informix::TechSupport At the command prompt. This is of course documented in the README file in the source distribution but will only work when the module has been completely installed - if someone is having difficulty with the installation then they might not get to that, in which case the file can be found in the DBD/Informix subdirectory of the directory where the distribution unpacks to. There you can do : perldoc TechSupport.pm Or even just open the file up in some viewer or editor ... > Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the > unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news > group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, > would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having > DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? > Well, people post questions about DBD::Informix into the even higher volume and nearly as plausible comp.lang.perl.misc and nearly always get then answered too. I guess its largely down to which direction you are coming from , that is a Perl person who uses Informix or Informix person using Perl. I dont object to answering questions about DBD::Informix here or clpm or anywhere really and I *do* think there is a benefit to the community as a whole whereby the Usenet postings get archived and indexed by such as Deja News - sticking in 'Perl Informix' in the Deja News power search comes up with a *lot* of hits (OK so a lot of these are job ads ... ), this in itself is a benefit because it allows people to find answers which they might not have found otherwise. People might not even know that DBD::Informix *exists* (though quite how that might arise is beyond me :) Also it might be difficult sometimes for people to determine whether their problem is related to DBD::Informix per se or to their database, their understanding of SQL, their understanding of Perl, the phase of the moon or whatever - a less specific forum might be what they need but they dont know that when they want to choose somewhere to ask their question. Dont get me wrong I am not against the idea of the mailing-list I am just not convinced that its existence should preclude people posting questions about DBD::Informix to Usenet. I might even subscribe myself (I shamefully admit that I never read DBD::Informix::TechSupport because I guess I never was in a position where I needed support and never expect to be ...). I think people should be *encouraged* to use the list but I dont think it warrants bringing down ones ire upon them if they dont. > Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious > question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking > questions where the answer is in TFM? > Too right it is. Its fair to the person who asked the question because when they realise something in the manual they will use it to find other answers and hey they might even learn something new without needing to. And for the people who knew the answer already becuase they read TFM it spares them from having to see stuff they knew regurgitated endlessly ... Its the same in most newsgroups and occasionally people get a little shirty about being told to RTFM but thats there problem ... > More complexly, I've just come across a new class of user for > DBD::Informix. Up until now, people who were using DBD::Informix had > also installed it, or they had easy access to the source code. Now I'm > finding that there as some (potential) users who do not install > DBD::Informix themselves, and hence do not have easy access to the > source code. Thats true of all Perl modules and indeed Perl itself - I would see it as a measure of success which of course needs to be accomodated somehow. > Since some of the documentation is not installed with the > product (mainly because it only applies to a few circumstances), what > about people who RTFM but do not read the correct TFM because they do > not have direct access to the uninstalled documentation. Of course, all > such users can get the source code (and it's the simple cop-out for me), > but... > Of course it wouldnt be difficult to POD up the rest of the documentation and install it along with the rest of the stuff - I'll do it if you want. Whilst I'm doing it I'll fix it so that the TechSupport doc gets installed as a proper manpage. As to what others have been saying about putting the PDF on 'Answers Online' I guess there is a Pod::PDF module that would suffice (and if there isnt there should be) but it could easily be converted to HTML and put there. /J\\

I think all of the Informix support should go through one place. There are advantages to having that be CDI and others have listed those. We have all seen folk lost in the morass of deciding whether to post here or to the IDN lists or to the IIUG SIGs. I think it is too confusing. There is also the advantage of improved concentration and pooling of knowledge if all of the Informix folk, like Jonathan, who are supporting specific product on one of the IDN lists were to shift that support here or some singular location. Art S. Kagel Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > Dear Informix User, > > I've been justifiably chastised for being very grumpy when people post > questions about DBD::Informix to comp.databases.informix -- I do get > grumpy when people do that. > > There are two documented support channels for DBD::Informix: > > * a high-volume public mailing list, dbi-users@isc.org, which has a > small volume of Informix traffic and hence a low S/N ratio. > * a low-volume private mailing list, dbd-informix@informix.com, > specifically to the Informix support effort (aka me). You won't be > subscribed to this list, but you can use it to communicate problems. > > Given these alternatives, is it fair for me to complain when the > unknowing send questions to a plausible alternative (high-volume) news > group / mailing list, namely comp.databases.informix? Put another way, > would the Informix community as a whole benefit from having > DBD::Informix questions answered on c.d.i? > > Also (and semi-relevantly to another thread started by another obnoxious > question answerer), is it fair to point out RTFM to people asking > questions where the answer is in TFM? > > More complexly, I've just come across a new class of user for > DBD::Informix. Up until now, people who were using DBD::Informix had > also installed it, or they had easy access to the source code. Now I'm > finding that there as some (potential) users who do not install > DBD::Informix themselves, and hence do not have easy access to the > source code. Since some of the documentation is not installed with the > product (mainly because it only applies to a few circumstances), what > about people who RTFM but do not read the correct TFM because they do > not have direct access to the uninstalled documentation. Of course, all > such users can get the source code (and it's the simple cop-out for me), > but... > > Your thoughts, please - publicly or privately. > > -- > Yours, > Jonathan Leffler (Jonathan.Leffler@Informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> > Guardian of DBD::Informix v1.00.PC1 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN > "I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!" > > PS: S/N ratio = signal to noise ratio. Small values are bad; large > values are good. Mostly, c.d.i has an acceptable S/N ration, but it is > trending downwards, which is bad.