[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why is troubleshooting Linux so hard?

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:18:09 -0500, Borden Rhodes wrote:

> Can I get a second on Teddy's opinion?  I tend to believe that I just
> share the Linux experience, and if I can get something useful done
> whilst the computer is willing, so much the better.  Is this the truth
> about open source software?  Maybe I am in the wrong distribution and
> I'm wasting the list's time.

Or maybe you are not interested in getting your problems solved.

There is no much room for your point. It is no difficult to see for 
anyone who has been (and still is) working with windows systems (that's 
me) a big difference for troubleshooting problems in both, linux an 
windows. I mean debugging "real" problems. Windows logs tell nothing 
about the nature of the error and applications are not usually very 

> What's important to emphasise here is that I'm not an idiot.  

And nobody tell that.

> Camaleón, I can tell the difference between a hardware problem and a
> software problem.  I fix computers for profit so I know how to
> troubleshoot problems when I have a clear set of symptoms which I can
> isolate and test.  Yes, I test my hard drive and RAM so, by the process
> of elimination, the problem *is* the software.

Congrats. For me is very difficult to provide an accurate diagnosis when 
hardware problems arise because no logs are being written and you have to 
make use of your crystal-ball (if available) and/or your previous 
experience. Neither for a newbie nor skilled user is an easy task. You 
can get your bdd to crash just for using a ram module not recommended by 
the manufacturer of the board or by mixing between two different brands. 
And you neither get a memtest warning nor a single line advising you 
about this. And this can happen in any OS.

You seem to have concluded that yours is a software problem. Good. I'm 
still waiting for a detailed explanation about it, because you want to 
solve the issue, right? >:-)



Reply to: