On Wed, 21.05.08 09:25, Dimi Paun (dimi@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > It is completely irrelevant that this is exactly what happens. > In fact, you could say that "a number of bytes don't reach a process > via file descriptor 7" and it would be exactly what happens, all > at the same time being a cryptic and bad error message. > > Do you really think a non technical user knows what a "server" is, > especially in this context? If you are tempted to reply yes, don't > bother, it Just Plain Wrong (TM). Have you noticed that most error messages on Linux are this terse? I think we simply disagree here what the main focus here should be. I think the focus should be to fix the remaining issue for you so that the entire error can go away. Your focus seems to be to make failing more descriptive. -- I am not at all against making error messages more discriptive, I would happily accept a sensible patch for this. So, please stop complaining about this, get off your ass and put your code where your mouth is! But please, strerror()-like error messages is how error reporting is mostly done on Linux these days. I am not sure why you are picking on PA that much. In contrast to what you claim desktop audio is really not a core component of the system. If audio breaks the effect is rather, huh, irrelevant most of the times. I can list you a lot of components of a modern system where failure is far, far more catastrophic. And no, I am not using this as an excuse that I can produce low quality, buggy code. All I want to ask you: please keep things in relation. So you are experiencing one bug on your specific setup that makes listening to your favourite music break after a few hours of continious play. Surely annoying, something we need to fix. But just one bug, and not catastrophic. And you are raving how really really essential this is, something that "MUST JUST WORK!", and blah and foo. And then you claim we ignored systematically and was just one among many. But that's not true. Lubomir responded. As did I. Maybe we didn't treat your bug with the priority you'd have liked that we treated it with, sure. But really, no need to flame anyone about. Please, let's stop this flame war here now. Bugs happen. All the time. Bugs aren't discovered by QA, quite often. This one wasn't fixed before F9 release. > Not by a long shot. If an app crashes, _anybody_ knows to restart it. On > this other hand, sound is a system feature that must work. The fact that > it doesn't without frequent reboots reflects a design problem -- sound > must restart automagically, not require the user to reboot every hour or > so to recover this essential desktop feature! > > For fsck's sake, I didn't have to reboot Windows 3.1 that often! This is nonsense. And you know it. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
