This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Mysterious gdb behavior
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Mysterious gdb behavior
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> [looks like I do have to respond to one message in this thread, after all]
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:02:33PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> >> On 29 Jul 2002 at 23:02, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> > You latched onto this concept when someone suggested it and are
> >> > apparently unable to actually verify for yourself if this actually is
> >> > your problem or not. As I said, what a strange strange thread we're on.
> >> If a doctor told you you had disease X you'd "latch onto" and be
> >> "unable to actually verify" that. You'd also be pretty ticked if it
> >> turned out to be a misdiagnosis. But until you heard otherwise or
> >> otherwise had reason to lose faith in the doctor's ability to
> >> diagnose, you wouldn't question it either.
> >> I'm not an expert on Cygwin internals. Thus I assume what the experts
> >> say is wrong is what's wrong, until proven otherwise. (And if
> >> everyone posting to the list is expected to be an expert and make
> >> their own diagnoses, please remind me what this list is for, because
> >> I *thought* it was mainly for users to ask for help with problems and
> >> get advice, but *obviously* I was wrong...)
> >Paul, I hope you don't consider this an insult, as it is not so intended.
> >However, there is one point here that I'd like to respond to (I've deleted
> >all but the relevant parts of the message above).
> >You contradict yourself. On one hand, you seem to think that everyone who
> >answers a post on the list is an expert. On the other, you acknowledge
> >that some people are here to ask questions, rather than answer them.
> >What you don't seem to realize is that there is no clear division between
> >the two categories. People answering a question may be (and probably are)
> >other users who are not experts, but vaguely remember hearing something
> >about a similar problem, and are genuinely trying to offer helpful
> >suggestions. Viewing these suggestions as the holy scripture is not going
> >to result in anything useful for your original purpose, i.e., getting a
> >correct answer to your question.
> >The difference in opinion about the cause of your problem is just that -
> >different people offering their theories on what caused your problem.
> >This is not easy, as the symptoms you describe don't seem to be
> >reproducible, even by the experts (and Chris Faylor is one). It's your
> >right to prefer one theory to another, but the scientific method also
> >requires trashing theories that are not substantiated by facts, and
> >experimenting to determine the validity of any particular theory.
> >Experiments, I may add, that other people have suggested, and that you
> >don't seem to have performed (e.g., trying the same sequence of actions
> >from a directory with no spaces in the name, or varying other parameters).
> >Please remember that there rarely are ready answers to complex problems.
> >People on this list try to help, but they (even the experts) are not
> >omniscient. Neither are they infallible. It's possible that some
> >suggestions for possible causes and solutions don't pan out. The thing to
> >do is try again, not to take it out on the person who suggested the wrong
> >thing, as it was done with the best of intentions. It also sometimes pays
> >to pursue several avenues of research, since some problems have multiple
> >In short, few people on this list are experts, and most (if not all)
> >aren't experts in EVERYTHING (by definition). There are bound to be some
> >questions that nobody knows how to answer, and therefore the best you get
> >are guesses. Since every machine configuration is unique, the best you
> >can do is help people figure out which guess is correct, so that others
> >can search the mailing list and learn from your experience.
> >I hope this rant is taken in good humor - by everyone. :-)
> I don't usually like to leave a large block of text quoted when I respond to
> something but I thought that this was a good time to make an exception.
> I think this is *wonderfully* and eloquently put. I wonder if I should put
> a link to this message at http://cygwin.com/bugs.html . Would you mind if
> I did that?
By all means, go ahead.
P.S. And to think that I'm not even subscribed to the list :-D
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon.
It takes a 486 to run Windows 95. Something is wrong here. -- SC sig file
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html