On 05/05/2015 10:56 AM, hcvv wrote:
> kensch;2708434 Wrote:
>> For new people why don’t you just accept that “linux is not seeing…”
>> == “linux does not detect…”. That is how I interpreted rwbehne1’s
>> Things are not always just black and white!
> It does not realy matter if you call it seeing or detecting, it still is
> a conclusion one posts. The hard facts are still missing. What is the
> statement/tool/whatever used to come to that conclusion?
> A good problem description consists of three things:
> - what did you do;
> - what happened’
> - what did you expect to happen.
> In the case of simply saying “Linux does not see/detect” #1 is missing
> completely, #2 is badly documented and #3 is hardly touched.
> Never mind. Let everybody report as (s)he likes. But do not expect a
> quick and correct answer.
THIS IS A NEW USER, SHOW SOME LATITUDE.
At times I don’t think you show any compassion for new users. Lighten
up, life is too short.