From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr 29 04:36:36 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA22428
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:36:36 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.223.46])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA22420
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:36:29 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA13798; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:35:14 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: time.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org,
        nate@trout.sri.MT.net
Subject: Re: What I'd *really like* for 2.0.5 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Apr 1995 17:37:24 +1000."
             <199504290737.RAA15373@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:35:13 -0700
Message-ID: <13796.799155313@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The drivers should be removed, not their messages.  You can use userconfig
> or the (unimplemented) driver-disable flag in your config file to disable
> drivers without completely removing them..

This assumes the average user is competent enough to play with
userconfig's disable or compile a kernel.  Judging by the tech support
calls I get, the average user isn't.

> I agree.  The messages are for putting in /var/log/messages to look
> at later and quote in bug reports.  `bootverbose' should not affect the
> amount of output that is logged to disk.  There should probably be
> more boot messages, but less printed on the console.  The message
> buffer currently limits the number of boot messages too much.

Then this should be fixed.  The entire idea of bootverbose was, to me,
to be able to REALLY diagnose user problems with the increased level
of debugging information supplied.  I don't know about you, but "bt0:
not found at 0x330" has NEVER been that helpful to me in diagnosing
these user problems that people seem to be arguing so vehemently (and
needlessly) that we need to be able to solve.  I never disagreed with
any of that.  I don't, however, think that the current output is
helpful enough to qualify as anything but noise.  You guys are
fighting the good fight, but on entirely the wrong battlefield.  An
entirely common syndrome among UNIX die-hards and exactly why we lost
the war to Microsoft.

					Jordan