𝙍ecursive 𝙏hread, about 𝙁ormation 𝙈ethods
"Read The Fine/F*#@* Manual" is a very old acronym used by first
which made the very first base of what all of us use now.
Looking at very old newsgroups, you may find a lot of threads like this 2003's discussion: Why there isn't an ISO: a very bad state of mind where a little irritation is readable...
There is a nice post in 2005: Why newbies don't RTFM... with a different meaning.
And finaly as a
reference, one of the very first documentation servers, simply named: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/
Nota: on Wikipedia,
the story tells us that the first apparition was in 1979.
to be cool a requirement?
Hurting a newbie may send them to such an intellectual process where he wants to try to understand why these people I don't know had a so aggressive answer against my simple question.
Like little kids in a park who try to understand methods to discuss, share and play with others kids. Some kids are really horrible, but trying to banish them is not acceptable. Other kids have to learn how to live with (and in this case, some of this other kids learn a lot about social exceptions).
badly written posts useless?!
Things have to be done by normal evolution. On a world-connected exchange platform, there are a lot of people with different sensibilities and attitudes. Trying to banish people because of their speaking attitude may not be the solution at all.
(Mozart, for example, had a poor social reputation, as many other geniuses. But who would banish his contributions?)
RTFM have to stay a quick acronym for Please, take a look at your installed documentation!
Alone it's clearly an agression, so such kind of answer or comment worth to be dropped.
If the mentioned documentation is not the
default documentation installed with concerned tools, RTFM is not appropriated.
If used in answers or comments, they must be supplemented by a quick and pertinent way to find appropriate documentation, maybe with a command sample ( like in 'My SO answer at: In the bash shell, what is “ 2>&1 ”?', point
4c ), as:
man Tps man >man-manpage.ps
or even for a particular section:
man -Pless\ +/^EXPANSION bash
(-: Parenthesis about
bash man page:
man -Len bash | col -b | wc -lw
... approx 41,000 words / 5,000 lines !!!
If it's not a
F*#@ manual page, what would you call this?
This other question about Is it OK to leave “What have you tried?” comments? is surely not a duplicate, but in fact, both questions are very close:
They reflect the teachers's legitimate irritation against students who won't to make a minimal effort.
Sometimes, the way the question is asked sound like a king ordering his servants, so if considering The customer is king could be a good commercial practice, this kind of attitude, here, is misplaced or offensive.
Anyway, if you post an answer or a comment, try to stay polite and maybe useful.
But, nobody is forced to waste their effort on an effortless question!!
If asker is human with right to be stupid, answerer is human and have legitimate limits too! :-)
It has become fashionable to defend the use of "RTFM" comments. Some feel it is always OK to use. Some feel it is sometimes OK to use. It is NEVER OK to use. There are better ways of drawing attention to the manual.
fashionable to defend the use of "RTFM" : This is an arbitrary stance.
RTFM acronym exist, so we have to live with.
always OK to use : Surely no!
it is sometimes OK to use : It could be resumed in this way.
It is NEVER OK to use : Surely no, while automatic bans is not a good idea.
There are better ways of drawing attention to the manual : Of course... in a perfect world!
But there is an human service for human people...