Are there any man pages for any of the system error messages?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: Live CD to scan windows pc for a virus
Next: where is CentOS storing my hostname that it resets it on each reboot?
From: Robert Bonomi on 12 Apr 2010 19:52 In article <hols87-vfc.ln1(a)neptune.markhobley.yi.org>, Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc despen(a)verizon.net wrote: >> home> ls -l nonsuchfile >> /bin/ls: cannot access nonsuchfile: No such file or directory >> >> Do you really think a message number would help? > >It might help a user who has that error pop up on the screen during operation, >because they can reference the message number against the documentation. against _what_ documentation?? Looking for an error message generted by an application in the _system_ eror message list is not going to be productive. Looking for an error message produced by 'tar' in the 5 volumes of 'X' error messages will be equally futile. >If on the other hand, they google for the message as output above, the only >documentation that they get, is a single hit to your post. The Unix world assumes that users can (a) read, and (b) THINK. when a message says 'no such file or directory', and gives the name of the file that the user requested access to, just what _MORE_ do you think it should provide? "Check your spelling, Check your capitalization, check your directory, check the machine you're logged into, check if it's been renamed, check if it's been moved to off-line storage, check if it's already been deleted" have I missed any? >Lets, look at another example. A user opens up their internet browser, starts >browsing the web, and the following error message appears: > >(gecko:nnnn): Pango-WARNING **: Error loading GPOS table 5503 > >Who the hell knows what means? An end user may have a real hard time trying >to resolve that error, if they cannot relate the message to appropriate >reference documentation. Numbering the messages so that this can be related >to reference documentation is just a good idea IMHO. Any message that is 'incomprehensible' to the _user_ has a very specific meaning and a SINGLE RESOLUTION -- "refer the problem to someone who does understand it". An error message like the one you cite is *NOT* something that a user can do anything about. It is a symptom of a _system_ issue, and should be referred to a system administrator for resolution. Which is what the 'help desk' will immediately tell him (if he has one available). If thene is no help desk, then the user has a way to contact the administrator dirctly. Either way, 'problem solved'. <grin> A compilation of all the basic error messages from any _single_ given application would be a good thing. Comingling the messages from multiple applications *IS* a BAD THING(TM). Co-mingling the messages from say 500 (and there are a *LOT* more than that for UNIX systems) unique a pplications would be an unmitigated disaster. I have a _basic_ server set-up, without any graphical desktop support. Over 2100 programs in the several 'bin' and 'sbin' directories. probably around 100,000 different errors, 5-10 mb of 'terse' error message text, 25mb of 'explanation' and a easily a couple of _hundred_ megabytes of 'resolutions'. Now, lets give those numbers a bit of perspective, A full-size book (say one volume of an encyclopedia) is around 50-80,000 words. Average 6 characters/word. roughly half-a-megabyte per volume. It'd take somewhere around 100 volumes for the master error-message compolation you propose.
From: Robert Bonomi on 12 Apr 2010 19:59 In article <hpghoa$1kj$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, Marten Kemp <marten.kemp(a)thisplanet-link.net> wrote: > >I come from an IBM mainframe environment where messages have numbers >(see my earlier post). They make life immeasurably simpler, even in >environments without as steep a learning curve as Linux does. One can simplify things greatly for a UNIX/LINUX environment. EVERYTHING is "SOC4" <*evil grin*>
From: Marten Kemp on 13 Apr 2010 08:22 Robert Bonomi wrote: > In article <hols87-vfc.ln1(a)neptune.markhobley.yi.org>, > Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.misc despen(a)verizon.net wrote: >>> home> ls -l nonsuchfile >>> /bin/ls: cannot access nonsuchfile: No such file or directory >>> >>> Do you really think a message number would help? >> It might help a user who has that error pop up on the screen during operation, >> because they can reference the message number against the documentation. > > against _what_ documentation?? > > Looking for an error message generted by an application in the _system_ eror > message list is not going to be productive. > > Looking for an error message produced by 'tar' in the 5 volumes of 'X' error > messages will be equally futile. > >> If on the other hand, they google for the message as output above, the only >> documentation that they get, is a single hit to your post. > > The Unix world assumes that users can (a) read, and (b) THINK. when a message > says 'no such file or directory', and gives the name of the file that the > user requested access to, just what _MORE_ do you think it should provide? > "Check your spelling, Check your capitalization, check your directory, check > the machine you're logged into, check if it's been renamed, check if it's > been moved to off-line storage, check if it's already been deleted" have > I missed any? > >> Lets, look at another example. A user opens up their internet browser, starts >> browsing the web, and the following error message appears: >> >> (gecko:nnnn): Pango-WARNING **: Error loading GPOS table 5503 >> >> Who the hell knows what means? An end user may have a real hard time trying >> to resolve that error, if they cannot relate the message to appropriate >> reference documentation. Numbering the messages so that this can be related >> to reference documentation is just a good idea IMHO. > > Any message that is 'incomprehensible' to the _user_ has a very specific > meaning and a SINGLE RESOLUTION -- "refer the problem to someone who does > understand it". An error message like the one you cite is *NOT* something > that a user can do anything about. It is a symptom of a _system_ issue, > and should be referred to a system administrator for resolution. Which is > what the 'help desk' will immediately tell him (if he has one available). > If thene is no help desk, then the user has a way to contact the administrator > dirctly. Either way, 'problem solved'. <grin> > > A compilation of all the basic error messages from any _single_ given > application would be a good thing. Comingling the messages from multiple > applications *IS* a BAD THING(TM). Co-mingling the messages from say > 500 (and there are a *LOT* more than that for UNIX systems) unique a > pplications would be an unmitigated disaster. I have a _basic_ server > set-up, without any graphical desktop support. Over 2100 programs in > the several 'bin' and 'sbin' directories. probably around 100,000 different > errors, 5-10 mb of 'terse' error message text, 25mb of 'explanation' and > a easily a couple of _hundred_ megabytes of 'resolutions'. Now, lets > give those numbers a bit of perspective, A full-size book (say one volume > of an encyclopedia) is around 50-80,000 words. Average 6 characters/word. > roughly half-a-megabyte per volume. It'd take somewhere around 100 volumes > for the master error-message compolation you propose. Okay, what's the explanation *and circumvention* for "Enter the new package tree limit:" from aptitude? The only hits I get from Giggle are posts I've made asking for help. See http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux.misc/2009-01/msg00468.html for more. -- -- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply) You can't help being ignorant 'cause there's always something you don't know; what you can't be is stupid.
From: Harald Meyer on 13 Apr 2010 09:29 Marten Kemp wrote: > Okay, what's the explanation *and circumvention* for > "Enter the new package tree limit:" from aptitude? > The only hits I get from Giggle are posts I've made > asking for help. Maliciously hidden from user view in a doc/* directory, but at the time Google has a reference to /usr/share/doc/aptitude/README at rank 11
From: unruh on 13 Apr 2010 11:05
On 2010-04-13, Marten Kemp <marten.kemp(a)thisplanet-link.net> wrote: > Robert Bonomi wrote: >> In article <hols87-vfc.ln1(a)neptune.markhobley.yi.org>, >> Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.misc despen(a)verizon.net wrote: >>>> home> ls -l nonsuchfile >>>> /bin/ls: cannot access nonsuchfile: No such file or directory >>>> >>>> Do you really think a message number would help? >>> It might help a user who has that error pop up on the screen during operation, >>> because they can reference the message number against the documentation. >> >> against _what_ documentation?? >> >> Looking for an error message generted by an application in the _system_ eror >> message list is not going to be productive. >> >> Looking for an error message produced by 'tar' in the 5 volumes of 'X' error >> messages will be equally futile. >> >>> If on the other hand, they google for the message as output above, the only >>> documentation that they get, is a single hit to your post. >> >> The Unix world assumes that users can (a) read, and (b) THINK. when a message >> says 'no such file or directory', and gives the name of the file that the >> user requested access to, just what _MORE_ do you think it should provide? >> "Check your spelling, Check your capitalization, check your directory, check >> the machine you're logged into, check if it's been renamed, check if it's >> been moved to off-line storage, check if it's already been deleted" have >> I missed any? >> >>> Lets, look at another example. A user opens up their internet browser, starts >>> browsing the web, and the following error message appears: >>> >>> (gecko:nnnn): Pango-WARNING **: Error loading GPOS table 5503 >>> >>> Who the hell knows what means? An end user may have a real hard time trying >>> to resolve that error, if they cannot relate the message to appropriate >>> reference documentation. Numbering the messages so that this can be related >>> to reference documentation is just a good idea IMHO. >> >> Any message that is 'incomprehensible' to the _user_ has a very specific >> meaning and a SINGLE RESOLUTION -- "refer the problem to someone who does >> understand it". An error message like the one you cite is *NOT* something >> that a user can do anything about. It is a symptom of a _system_ issue, >> and should be referred to a system administrator for resolution. Which is >> what the 'help desk' will immediately tell him (if he has one available). >> If thene is no help desk, then the user has a way to contact the administrator >> dirctly. Either way, 'problem solved'. <grin> >> >> A compilation of all the basic error messages from any _single_ given >> application would be a good thing. Comingling the messages from multiple >> applications *IS* a BAD THING(TM). Co-mingling the messages from say >> 500 (and there are a *LOT* more than that for UNIX systems) unique a >> pplications would be an unmitigated disaster. I have a _basic_ server >> set-up, without any graphical desktop support. Over 2100 programs in >> the several 'bin' and 'sbin' directories. probably around 100,000 different >> errors, 5-10 mb of 'terse' error message text, 25mb of 'explanation' and >> a easily a couple of _hundred_ megabytes of 'resolutions'. Now, lets >> give those numbers a bit of perspective, A full-size book (say one volume >> of an encyclopedia) is around 50-80,000 words. Average 6 characters/word. >> roughly half-a-megabyte per volume. It'd take somewhere around 100 volumes >> for the master error-message compolation you propose. > > Okay, what's the explanation *and circumvention* for > "Enter the new package tree limit:" from aptitude? > The only hits I get from Giggle are posts I've made > asking for help. Who knows. It is an error message written by a programmer who is completely incompetent at writing error messages. If you thing such a programmer will write to you asking for an error message number and then write an explanation for the message for your man page, you are dreaming. You seem to think like a bureaucrat-- if only you set up a bureacratic system, all incompetence will be banished. It won't. > > See > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux.misc/2009-01/msg00468.html > for more. > |