Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > My point was basically that omitting useful debugging tools makes it
> > not any less likely that people use the (A) strategy (easy fix instead
> > of real understanding). For some people it is so painfull to work with
> > raw dumps that they want to get out of that pain as quickly as
> > possible, like with just adding an if (!ptr) return; and be done with
> > it.
>
> well, they will sooner or later notice that it's easier to fix bugs by
> following the development of the kernel and understanding the underlying
> principles and the code. As elitist as it might seem, we rather need 10
> highly skilled developers who understand the kernel than 100 moderately
> skilled ones who know how to operate a kernel debugger and barely anything
> else. [this is not an insult towards people with less experience - having
> less experience is just a temporary stage of a process, nothing else. But
> if it becomes the end station thats a problem IMHO.]
A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. No one cares what's
underneath, they just care about getting their stuff out the door and
reducing the $$$ to support it. This whole argument is one of control
and not of technical merit. I'm putting it out in MANOS and it's there
for Linux. Linus can use it if he want's it. ALL of my developers and
folks I deal with say this is a good idea.
Jeff
>
> Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
