Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:11:59 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Mysterious gdb behavior Message-ID: <20020731211159.GA5920@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3D47F9AA DOT 29774 DOT 64BD0A62 AT localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i [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 >causes. > >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? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/