> > I understand the reasons for auditors (having been involved in audit > > compliance myself for a while). I wasn't talking about any "shortcomings" > > in the software. > As I understand it you are saying that if the message isn't documented and is > n't > understandable then you get to read the source to figure out what it means... > to > me (and I think to many other computer professionals and software users) that > is > a big shortcoming of the software (that it does not produce output that can b > e > understood short of reading the internals that produced it).
Not only does Linux produce messages nobody's going to understand, but it often produces them in places people are not too likely to see them, at least when they need them. If this bothers you, here are your choices a) Learn to Live with it b) Fund a project to fix it. That's one of the things OSS 'is all about.' c) Don't use Linux -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
