Archive for August, 2009

YHINW – Your Help is NOT Wanted

I would like to propose a new online shortcut, an acronym that can be used at appropriate times: YHINW

It stands for “Your Help is NOT Wanted” and the “Y” is intended to refer to a specific person, not everyone on the channel on group or forum you’re using.  Just the one person that’s being kind of a jerk.

For example, you ask a question about some piece of software, and you get this: RTFM — which, as we all know, stands for “Read The Fine Manual” (okay, I know F doesn’t really stand for “Fine”, but I try not to drop the F-bomb unless somebody or something really ticks me off.)  Often, what they are really saying is, “I don’t know the answer offhand (or I’m just too lazy to type a couple of meaningful sentences that might help you along), but I think maybe it might be in the manual, if an actual manual even exists — maybe it’s just one of those awful MAN pages that tells you everything you DON’T want to know, but only maybe touches on what you do want to know, if you can decipher it.  In any case, I’m much too superior/busy/arrogant to give you any real help.”  YHINW.

See, if you’re going to tell someone to RTFM, the very least you can do is assume they might have already tried that, and maybe give them a bit more specific information.  For example, “Look at the MAN page, search for the phrase {whatever} and it’s right under that.”  That would be actually helpful, and doesn’t take that much more time – unless, of course, the person making the RTFM comment has never actually looked at the manual/man page himself, and has no idea where the information might be. Anyway, let he who has read every page of every manual for every piece of software, every hardware device, every household appliance and every vehicle he’s ever owned — and understood every single word of those documents — be the first to cast a RTFM.

A similar situation is where you ask how to do something, and some jackass replies, “F***ing Google It.”  YHINW.  Telling someone to use Google to find something is actually a perfectly valid response, but maybe you should assume they don’t have your searching skills, so offer something like “Try Google using these search terms (or phrases)” and make a couple suggestions. It’s pretty daunting when you try to Google to discover how to do something, and you get 5,000,000 possible results, and none of the ones in the first five or ten pages of results give you anything remotely close to the answer. If you can’t even suggest some good search words or phrases, then maybe it’s you that lacks intelligence and imagination, not the person who posted the question.

Then there is the breed of jerk that haunts forums related to non-Windows machines or software.  You ask how to do something that is easily doable in Windows, and they give you a lecture about how you’re not using Windows anymore and you shouldn’t be trying to do that anyway.  Or they propose some “solution” that isn’t even close to what you asked about, and suggest that’s how you ought to be doing things, and if you don’t immediately take their advice with sufficient gratitude they flame you into oblivion as not being worthy to use that particular software, operating system, or computer — and if they’re in a particularly lousy mood, they may cast aspersions on your general character and intelligence.  Oh, puh-leeze — YHINW.  If you really don’t know of any way to do what I’m asking, than why not just STFU (if you don’t know that acronym, it’s sort of the written equivalent of “shut your pie hole”) instead of taking the opportunity to prove you’re an arrogant bastard that acts as though he was born with a computer keyboard in hand, and infinite knowledge in his brain (leaving no room for manners or basic social skills).

Even good advice, given with too much attitude and arrogance, will not usually be appreciated.  You might even be right, but come off like a jackass and the recipient of your advice will not thank you (that’s particularly true when it’s unsolicited advice — keep that in mind at your next family gathering).

I really don’t tolerate these types of people well.  My theory is, if you can’t offer something helpful and constructive — or if you can’t offer it without exhibiting a serious attitude — then just keep your fingers off the damn keyboard.  Let someone else answer, or let everyone ignore the original poster if no one knows the answer or wants to help.  There is no shame in keeping silent, rather than coming off as an arrogant jerk.  There have been times you’ve needed help — would you have appreciated a smart-ass comment instead of real help?  And if that actually happened to you, I’m sorry — the world can be a cruel place sometimes — but why not try making it a better place instead of passing on the misery to someone else?  Remember, karma is a bitch!

Comments (1)

Some advance information on FreePBX 3 and FreeSWITCH?

I’m passing along the following information, received from someone who wishes to remain anonymous (and I will respect that). So if you like, treat this as unverified information, wild-ass guess or what you will, but I suspect it’s pretty accurate – I guess we’ll know for sure at some point this afternoon (note that when he says “tomorrow”, that’s probably “today” for most readers, unless you’re in a western time zone and you catch this post when it first appears):

Tomorrow there will be a speech on building modular GUIs for FreeSWITCH. This is really an announcement of the new FreePBX v3. It will be demoed at Cluecon tomorrow, Wednesday, at 3pm. FreePBX 3 is a collection of ideas from the TCAPI and Phonebooth project merged with the lessons of the FreePBX and AMP projects. The community is still being run and coached by Philippe Lindheimer, but the lead on the TCAPI project (and some of its code) has been ported to a brand new framework – now known as FreePBX 3. More information is at http://www.freepbx.org/v3/

You should be aware that FreePBX 2 is NOT going away or suffering from a lack of development – infact, Philippe is likely releasing the next revision of FreePBX 2 shortly.

The software aims to be fully modular while remaining open source. When we say modular, this involves both modular switching and modular functionality. You don’t have to use the system as a PBX, although initially that is what most modules will revolve around.

So there you have it. Very interesting, no?

Comments (1)

Dear Google Voice: PLEASE give us a direct-to-SIP option for incoming calls

Google Voice is a great service, no doubt about it.  And for non-technical users that still have a basic PSTN phone line, or a regular mobile phone, it gives them a lot of flexibility. But for those of us who are a bit more technically inclined, it’s kind of frustrating.  Why? Because Google is a technology company, and yet they seem to want to “dumb down” Google Voice to the lowest common denominator.

Forget for a moment the hassle involved in making an outgoing call – sure, if you are sitting there with your old, black, rotary-dial phone and are about to make a 20 minute call to Grandma and your traditional phone company still charges for long distance like it’s 1985, then there would definitely be some appeal to going to the Google Voice site and entering the number you want to call, then having it call you and her and then bridging the call.  But most people just want to dial the call and have the doggone thing go through.  The Nerd Vittles folks have tackled that issue, but it’s not exactly an elegant solution, particularly if you’re not currently running an Asterisk-based PBX and using FreePBX (I don’t mean to denigrate the Nerd Vittles folks in any way by that comment; they’ve done a remarkable thing considering what they have to work with — it just really shouldn’t need to be that complicated, but that not the fault of the NV folks!). But my desire is even simpler – in the spirit of the old Grand Central service, which Google purchased to use as the basis of Google Voice, I just want to be able to receive incoming calls and direct them to where I want them to go.

And, sometimes, that means I want to direct them to a SIP address.  While that could even mean going direct to a VoIP adapter, in most cases it means that I will want to send the call to a SIP server (such as an Asterisk box).  The main thing is, I don’t want the call to touch the PSTN.  I don’t want it possibly converted to analog and back to digital.  And I certainly don’t want to see Google having to pay some PSTN company a termination charge to complete the call, when that’s absolutely unnecessary (and might even hasten the demise of a great free service).

But, you may say, Google gives us a way to do this – it lets you send the call to a Gizmo5 account…

GVscreenshot

And while it’s true that Gizmo is one of the destination choices, the problem here is that Gizmo5 has this nasty habit of changing their terms of service (EDIT: Michael Robertson, the CEO of Gizmo5, says that statement is inaccurate — see his comment, below). So far this has primarily affected outgoing calls — as was noted in the Nerd Vittles article linked above:

… What started out last Monday as a free, unlimited Google Voice service quickly morphed into a 20 minute call, and then a 3 minute call, and then 2¢ per minute for Google Voice calls. No notice to the early adopters, of course. So they’d only learn about all of this when the funds in their Gizmo5 accounts were exhausted. …

Hey, Google, can you understand that we MIGHT not want to utilize the services of a company that plays those sorts of games? But the question I’d like answered is this: What mechanism are they using to send those calls to Gizmo? And why couldn’t we have some other options – like, say, sending it to our own SIP devices or servers?  Why not let us specify a server name (and optionally a port), and then send the call the call to our Google Voice number at that address (for example, if the Google Voice number were 888-555-2368 it would send the call to sip://8885552368@yourserver.dyndns.com, or whatever address you use, on port 5060 unless you optionally specify a different port).

Another suggestion might be to add e164.org as an option. This would tell Google Voice to send the call as an ENUM call to the number specified.  It would not require any changes in their GUI (you’d still enter a regular phone number) but it would simply indicate that Google Voice should first try sending the call via ENUM before dumping it out to the PSTN. You can register up to four phone numbers with e164.org for free and once you add the required information, anyone can call you using ENUM and the call will go completely over the Internet.  Notably, e164.org does not actually handle the call, it’s simply a directory service (think a DNS lookup for SIP calls).  There’s also a newer, similar service at enumplus.org, and they actually offer a module for use with PBX in a Flash and other FreePBX-based distributions. Google Voice should allow the use of use one or both of these services to complete calls — in fact, maybe Google should consider buying one of these services, so they can operate their own ENUM registry (if Google did it, I’m sure the acceptance factor for using ENUM to route calls for free over the Internet would increase exponentially).

All I’m asking is, please, Google, give us a way to receive our Google Voice calls without letting them touch the PSTN — you’re an Internet company, for crying out loud! — and without forcing us to have a Gizmo5 account, since the moods of that company seem to change with the weather, and we don’t need them as an intermediary on our calls anyway!

EDIT: If you would like to make this request of Google Voice, you could go to their “Suggest a feature for Google Voice” page, go to the “I have another idea” section at the bottom of the page, select “Other” from the dropdown, and enter your suggestion into the text box and then click “Suggest It.” I don’t know if anyone actually reads or considers those suggestions, but maybe if enough of us requested the direct-to-SIP option, they might just make it so!

Comments (22)