Messages in this thread | | | From | Marty Fouts <> | Subject | RE: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS for Linux | Date | Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:33:31 -0700 |
| |
FWIW, although this is an interesting theory, in my experience, having a good kernel debugger allows me *more* time to think clearly, rather than less. YMMV.
IMHO, the division of labor between man and computer should be that each does what they are best at. In the case of debugging, this means letting the machine do the bookkeeping things that debuggers are good for.
The best course is being able to solve the problem from first principles from a problem description and the source code. But there are plenty of time when the problem description is ambiguous, or the source code is someone else's but I need a fix anyway, or any of a thousand other reasons why I end up using a debugger.
After all, if there is any science in "computer science", it is empirical science, and the debugger is a lab tool that allows me to quickly test hypothesis about the source of the problem.
It has also never been my experience that taking longer to scope out the problem leads to a better fix. Quiet the contrary, especially when under time pressures. The sooner I can figure out what *is* broken, the more time I have to think about how best to fix it.
While it may be true that (some) people spend more time thinking when they are debugging without a debugger, it is probably also true that most of that thought amounts to trying to figure out how to get the visibility the debugger would have given you.
marty
-----Original Message----- From: David S. Miller [mailto:davem@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 5:04 PM To: jmerkey@timpanogas.com Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; jes@linuxcare.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS for Linux
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 15:58:50 -0600 From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.com>
I can only assume the reason for this is one of control, and that there are no valid technical reasons for it. I have spent more nights with printk() than I care to.
And I bet the lessons learned and the issues involved in those nights with printk will never leave your brain, you will remember precisely in the future next time you see the same types of symptoms what kinds of things to look for and where.
This is what a debugger does not do for you. The debugger allows you to be lazy, step around, "oh yeah check for NULL" and never have to _think_ about what you're doing or the changes you're making or even if the same bug might be elsewhere.
This is why Linus does not allow a debugging facility like this into the kernel, so people spend time _thinking_ when they go hunting down bugs.
It takes longer to nail a bug, yes, but the resulting fix is always far superior. And the person who discovers the bug leaves with a much larger amount of knowledge about how that area of the kernel works.
Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |