Rohit wrote:
> On Jun 11, 6:41 pm, Tim Southerwood <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>> Rohit wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 4:28 pm, Tim Southerwood <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>> Rohit wrote:
>>>>> I am working on some application which requires taking down alias
>>>>> interface (say eth0:1) on one machine and bring an alias with same IP
>>>>> on another machine. So far i was running my application as root itself
>>>>> but now i want to stop that . But the steps remain same.
>>>> BTW, please don't multipost, crosspost instead - I just replied to this
>>>> in c.o.l.development.system
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Tim
>>> I do not know why you are advocating this as some people may have
>>> subscibed to only one of them and get to see the Q only once. And the
>>> Question i asked seems to be ok to be asked in either of them. Those
>>> who see it twice can just ignore it when they see it second time.
>>> Still if you think this is not good idea , let me know why ??
>>> -- Rohit
>> I'm not going to argue or start a flame - it's not a big thing, but I will
>> explain my argument gladly.
>>
>> The usual argument in favour of crossposting is less bandwidth and disk
>> usage on the news-servers and less bandwidth usage to the newreader (some
>> people still have only dial-up). But there is a further take, which is that
>> with multiposting:
>>
>> Someone in group A reponds helpfully, taking 10 minutes to think and type up
>> a 50 line detailed repsonse.
>>
>> A while later, person in group B, unaware of person in group A's answer,
>> spends 10 minutes to come up with an equally helpful and basically similar
>> answer.
>>
>> If person in group B had seen the reply in group A via crossposting, they
>> may have thought "that's a good answer, just what I would have said" and
>> simply move on with their life.
>>
>> In other words, it can waste the time of helpful people unnecessarily.
>>
>> It's not big deal, but I've seen the effect a number of times and it's
>> easily avoided.
>>
>> My opinion only, but I think it is rational.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>
> Well then i would change the way i do things here. Here is what i am
> going to do. I will post the Q to group A only, wait for sometime (how
> much ?? it's relative ).
> If i do not get any reply, then only i go to group B (which according
> to me is second best candidate for my Q.). I think this addresses
> concerns of both of ours.
>
> Anyway thanks for ur reply and suggestions about multiposting. It made
> me think more about other view and changed the way i will do things in
> future .
>
> Cheers,
> -- Rohit
>
Just to add my two øre...
With cross-posting, if you post a question in groups A and B, and
someone in group A replies, then people in group B see the answer too.
Assuming the cross-posting was to appropriate groups, this spreads the
knowledge to more interested people. It also means that someone only in
group B will be unable to add to the reply in group A. For example, I
haven't seen Tim's answer to your question, and therefore can't learn
from it or add to it. Remember that Usenet is only partly about getting
answers to a poster's question - it's about sharing information, ideas
and tips with many interested people (as well as being about
entertainment, time-wasting, etc. :-)
mvh.,
David
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
