Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 10:07:25 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, 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 Message-ID: <199504291607.KAA24837@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <13796.799155313@time.cdrom.com> References: <199504290737.RAA15373@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <13796.799155313@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. That's the problem. "bt0: not found at 0x330" has been invaluable to me in debugging users problems. I use it more than *any* other tool to find problems with folks setup. I can't disagree that it never helped you obviously, but sure the heck has helped me. > 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. Then let's reduce some of the *un-necessary/unhelpful* noise. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. > 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. Cheap shot, and not worth responding to. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504291607.KAA24837>