Re: Why is troubleshooting Linux so hard?
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:51:55 -0500, Borden Rhodes wrote:
> (Sorry for the late reply to a thread started way back)
> I'm pleased for all of the feedback and that I'm not the only person
> who's frustrated. I tried proposing to debian-policy that it be
> mandatory that all logs have timestamps
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2010/02/msg00035.html but my
> suggestion was dismissed because it was considered too hard to enforce.
> I responded http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2010/08/msg00043.html
> saying that it shouldn't be very difficult to enforce or implement at
I guess you posted your wish into the wrong list.
Debian Policy is about (sic) "Discussion and editing of the Debian Policy
Manual". Maybe you should have addressed your concern to "debian-
devel" (where meal is being coocked) or by directly filling a bug report.
But I'm afraid that feature will have to be addressed upstream or just in
case another distribution is already adding that option, you should have
pointed that it is already available.
> Linux already has a huge troubleshooting database: Google. The trouble
> is that simply copying-and-pasting an error message into Google with a
> program or package name (assuming you know whose fault it is) doesn't
> generate very useful results. The most useful change, therefore, would
> be to improve the quality of the error messages.
I'd say Google _and_ experience.
Becasue Google means nothing for people who does not know where to look
or how to search.
> I just want to say that I like KDE's auto-crash popup and it would be
> nice to have implemented Linux-wide. Of course, the trick is when you
> don't have the appropriate debugging packages installed to install them
> and regenerate the crash report before it goes away.
Every project provides its own bug tracking tool (GNOME -bugbuddy-, KDE,
kernel -kerneloops-, mozilla...). There are tools for handling crashes
but you have to install "debug" packages associates for each application.
But, OTOH, these bug crashes reports say not much for the plain user:
they are targeted to devels and won't help us to solve our "mere mortal"
> What would it take to get some error message standards in place so that
> troubleshooting Linux is possible for those of us who aren't computer
> science PhD candidates?
Linux provides one of the best tools I've never seen for debugging erros:
understable logs. They're priceless :-)