Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 04:16:01 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@AUSS2.ALCATEL.COM.AU>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: zone: entry not free Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9903110402290.43830-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <199903110519.VAA61078@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :> : > :> :This means that invariants need to add relatively little overhead. > :> : > :> :Peter > :> > :> .... which they do. > : > :You know, guys, for programmers, wanting immediate panics on stuff like > :this is great, but there isn't one user in a thousand that wants this. > :If you make this kinda stuff default on a version *other than* current > :(current being by definition, for programmers/developers only) then > :you're going to hear bloody murder, and you guys will be doing vast > :damage to FreeBSD's reputation. > : > :Users don't want panics, and they don't care why, they just want things > > No no no... you are missing the whole point. > > *IF* we put these kinds of checks in by default, the result is a > few more panics in the near term, but *NO* panics in the medium and > long term. That's completely true, but nearly all users simply couldn't care less. They don't see the long view, they only see what's happening right now. It's the reason that your attitude is totally correct & healthy for a developer ... but the only thing that most users will see is the fact that FreeBSD panics more often. They won't even bother to make of note of why a panic occurred, all they will ever note is that a panic *did* occur. A developer will be helped hugely by your attitude, which is why it would be *very* healthy for current to do what you want. All the folks running current would serve as a better set of guinea pigs ... we're all developers, I don't think any of us would complain ... but never get the idea that a user is going to be happy to get a panic; no matter how much time you spend explaining why it's a good thing, they'll only remember that FreeBSD paniced on them. Alex Zepeda wrote: > Hmm. Well think of it this way. What happens when the kernel doesn't > panic but manages to accidentally wipe out your file system without > warning? or perhaps just loose some of the more important data on the > HDD? What kind of reaction do you expect then? Seeing as we're talking about failures that, most of the time, the user never sees the results of, users won't say a single thing ... if they're box *doesn't* panic, they'll be happy. If it panics more often, they'll notice that, and they won't bother asking why, they'll just switch to Linux (and quickly). They aren't signing on to be FreeBSD beta-testers, you know ... at least, believe me, THEY know that. On top of all that, the ordinary user won't even bother to report the fact that your panic happened (or why), while they're removing FreeBSD. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9903110402290.43830-100000>