From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Oct 12 17:39:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01750 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:39:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from hwcn.org (main.hwcn.org [199.212.94.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01743 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:39:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hoek@hwcn.org) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hwcn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17649; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19536; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:39:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: ac199@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: Terry Lambert cc: hoek@hwcn.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fnord0: disabled, not probed. In-Reply-To: <199710130005.RAA02085@usr05.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > You check dmesg for each and every time you boot your computer? > > Indeed, you are a better man than I! > > No, I check it if I have unexplained problems. Besides, I learned to > read the significant stuff scrolling at 19.2 a long time ago... 8-). Which means you don't fix things until _after_ you've had unexplained problems... > > Besides, only a schmuck would take action A, which has an unknown > > result, and assume that reaction C is unrelated. :) (Where A is > > disabling devices he doesn't recognize and C is a missing hdd :). > > I'd agree, except for "device npx0 ..." shoots a whole in your thesis. > It claims to be optional (by having a line in the configuration file, > it is implied that it need not be configured in a minimal kernel). It's a good thing we weren't discussing kernel configuration files, then! :) > If the entire source tree were internally consistent, then you'd > have a case. Regardless of wether I have a case or not (I happen to think that in the specific instance I do -- someone brand new to the OS should assume that things going wrong are their fault and not the result of an `internally inconsistent' OS) little Johnny is still not going to benefit from a thousand or so "disabled, not probed" messages. Hm. Come to think of it, Johnny might not be aware of the dmesg command or scrollback capabilities, making it all the more important that only truly relevent information is spewed forth at him. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk