Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:16:24 +0900 From: Masahiro Sekiguchi <seki@sysrap.cs.fujitsu.co.jp> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: errormessages Message-ID: <19980225131624C.seki@sysrap.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Why dont errormessages contain an unique errornumber too? Because it makes users feel some thing like they were living in '50s or '60s. :-) BTW, > Like: "foo: Error#13: Smurf seriously overgulfed" > easier to find the error, when somebody on the mailinglists > writes "Hey, I got this message something like the Smurf was gulfed". I see no significant difference between that and "Error#13 occured;" It will only cause a flood of replys saying something like: "Just saying Error#13 helps nothing; the name of the quimmer is absolutely important to solve your gulfer problem. Was it Smurf, Snarf or Barf?" The point is, when we ask about the message we don't understand, we have to include *entire* message in its *complete* form in the mail. Since message numbers give users impression that just writing the number is enough, the bad practice of tightfisted question will be propagated. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980225131624C.seki>