Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Yes, I do belive that you are right, I seem to remember reading that now that you mentioned it....never occurred to me. Most likely the same user that commented(comment was please expand you answer instead of just including a link) likely flagged it as well.....
upon reflection(eh, it was 2 days ago so I had to think about it), I believe that I saw the warning but thought that it was overshadowed by the info in the rest of that option. So I guess you answer solved that part of my concern, but I would like a more general answer as to what the policy should be about these types of answers(esp. ones that don't include any warning)....
@wilf I'm not sure if your comment is in response to my question or on of the other comments(lian's maybe?) so my response may be irrelevant, but I am aware that EOL questions get deleted so I was not concerned about them I'm just not sure how to handle EOL answers-hence my question.
well I read that answer 3 times before posting and somehow missed the warning that was included....not sure how but.....and was not concerned with editing this answer per say but as a general question as to what should be the policy on flagging these type of answers should be....
@lain while I agree that editing all old questions would be a near impossible task, any risks of older questions would be mitigated by the fact that you can see the date the question was asked, so you should have an idea that the info might be out of date. We cannot stop people from following bad advise, but if we allow new(and by association, assumed still valid) answers to stand as is, so we then take on some culpability of the results of bad advise?
Just in case I confused anyone with the last part of my comment: "make hay out of it" may be too much of an American(rural mid-western) colloquialism and maybe I should have used something else but it basically means that the detractors would love to use it to show how bad Ubuntu/Canoncial is if they let this kind of dangerous advise stand....Or to put it another way, never give you enemies anything they can use against you...
I see your point about it being unavoidable at times, and I really like the idea of an EOL warning, but as you said it might be hard to implement. The answer that actually caused me to ask this question was to run 10.10 as a daily computer, which to me seemed irresponsible and dangerous, so I'm not sure if the points you made would apply to it. I'd hate for AU to get a rep for giving bad advice by allowing or at least not posting some kind of a warning(as you suggested) about it being possibly dangerous. Ubuntu/Canonical have detractors that would love to make hay out of something like that.
doesn't hanging first take the fun out of the drawing and quartering? I Would suggest tarring and feathering then draw and quarter....sorry I know this was of topic but I couldn't resist, the humour in your answer was infectious;)
@Braiam , I did check the description for the bug tag before I used it "...you've found an erroneous or unexpected behaviour in the system..." as opposed to the support tag; "You need help with the use of one or more of the site's features". It appeared to me to be "unexpected behaviour" as opposed to "me needing help using the site" hence the question- why support was the appropriate tag as opposed to bug
@Braiam I would assume that you are correct, at least is seems valid. Not much else makes sense.... ---Oli, sorry I was not able to pass on the link, I went to bed not long after posting the question, I see you found it anyway, but it would have been easier for me to get it from my internet history.....
