Re: LSB init scripts and multiple lines of output
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 06:51:54PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> In my ideal world, this is what it would look like:
>
> Starting RAID devices ...
> /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives.
> /dev/md1 has been started with 3 drives.
> /dev/md2 assembled from 2 drives - need all 3 to start it
> /dev/md3 assembled from 1 drive - not enough to start the array.
> /dev/md4 has been started with 3 drives.
> ... done assembling RAID devices: failed.
[...]
> Generally, I would not have a problem doing something like
>
> Starting RAID devices ... failed (see log for details).
Really, PLEASE, don't!
Hiding information is _never_ good. For any reason. Even if you
expect the user to be non-technical.
Let me go into a longer rant, only partially on the topic.
I witnessed a smart but non-guru user install a certain brand new
Debian-like distribution on her home box today. That person is a
physicist doing medical research, with no sysadmin experience but
familiar with quite a bunch of Unices.
The machine was known to be good except for the disk, which in turn
was checked on an identical box before.
The trouble she faced consistent of a number of _random_ breakages
with totally no usable error messages:
* In about 1/3 tries, parted failed with whatever the error message
was hidden by the installer's GUI. Tell me, how she was supposed
to figure out what's wrong? (Skipping the fact that something as
dangerous as parted should never be allowed to break in a common
setup [1].)
* At some point during the main installation phase (with nothing but
a progressbar shown), the installer coughed up and barfed a window
full of a Python backtrace right in the user's face, then died. I
looked at the dialog, but couldn't figure out what went wrong,
either. Perhaps taking a look at the logs (HIDDEN FROM THE USER)
would be insightful, but the friend claimed that if the
installation is supposed to be graphical, she's not going to let me
do everything by hand [2].
Where's the goddamn meaningful error message?
* Two times, a dialog simply popped up, saying: "The installer has
crashed". Just that. Without a single damn word about the cause,
or even just a mention of what it was doing at the time.
The friend muttered something about Ubuntu being as flaky as
Windows, then rebooted and started the installation anew...
* The GUI network setup tools simply ignore any failures. After
choosing a SSID from a list (the list shows that the hardware and
kernel-side stuff was working ok) then clicking "Activate", the
dialog simply shows nothing for ~20sec and then acts as if
everything was in working order.
What was wrong? Can you tell me from the provided information?
Current vanilla text-mode Debian will give you a message after
every action. With Ubuntu, you need to dig deeply to force the
system to reveal what's going on.
Finally, I had to leave; the friend hasn't succeed yet.
[1]. A 50GB unformatted primary partition, the rest being on
extended: two 50GB unformatted ones, 50+GB ext3 on /home, 1GB swap,
7GB ext3 on /.
[2]. Get a reflex of going into mkfs/debootstrap mode at the smell of
the first installer trouble and people will start spreading evil
rumors about you :p
--End of rant--
Now, let's go into your question:
> Starting RAID devices ...
> /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives.
> /dev/md1 has been started with 3 drives.
> /dev/md2 assembled from 2 drives - need all 3 to start it
> /dev/md3 assembled from 1 drive - not enough to start the array.
> /dev/md4 has been started with 3 drives.
> ... done assembling RAID devices: failed.
An user who has just the basic idea what RAID is will know what's
going on instantly. When they'll call you, you will be able to help
them right away.
> Starting RAID devices ... failed (see log for details).
Now, you'll have to explain to the user how to get to the log. And
what if the system is inoperative (with failed RAID, it almost
certainly will be)?
You can't be too verbose, but if you hide the most important parts,
it will be a great disservice to the users.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
Reply to: