This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: .exe.stackdump and core dump files questions

Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 05:53:28PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
On 24 November 2006 13:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
[thread properly TITTTL'd for reasons of bock-bock-bock-baaaagaaaaaawk!]

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:43:45 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen

On Nov 23 22:07, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes. It's called "cat".
Do you think to be fun? or that a sequence of HEX characters are
There's nothing funny here. The stackdump file is human-readable
and there's no more information. If you want more information
you need a debugger and executables built with debugging information.
It really is NOT funny: it's perfectly clear what Angelo was asking
for, even though English is evidently not his first language. Instead
of helping him, like the other 2 respondents did, Chris decided to
mock him in public -- a terribly unfriendly and unprofessional thing
to do, which doesn't add any respect to this forum.
 Just because it isn't very funny doesn't mean it was mocking.  Or even that
it was /meant/ to be mocking, since intent and consequences are not always one
and the same.

It's facetious to attempt to infer someone's state of mind and
motivation from a single line of text with only four words in it, many
would consider that far too small a sample to be statistically valid.
But, hey, I *am* pretty facetious, so I'm going to try![*]

My *guess* (because 'guess' is all that any of us have been doing so
far) is that cgf saw the post, saw that it had already been answered
with all the relevant information, and didn't see why not to post a
"ha-ha-only-serious" type of quickfire humorous comeback. Which fell
flat on its face, but it's a long reach from there to "mocking".

This is fairly close to what happened except for the fact that 1) the
term "human readable" doesn't mean "I don't understand the output"
(otherwise I could claim that Hebrew wasn't human-readable) and 2) I
tend to approach technical support issues with few expectations of the
ability of the person asking the question and often reply exactly to
what the person asked*. Part of the reason that I do that is to get the
person thinking about expressing themselves more clearly and part is
because, over the years, I've grown to find the "I'm going to ask a
question and I want you to assume a bunch of stuff which may or may not
be true" style of bug report to be exasperating
I feel so much the same when it comes to network support. It is only in the light of continuously being barraged with insufficiently detailed problems have I realized that problem-reporting should at least include some observable fact as to what caused the problem. For example, (and the cygwin mailing list has definitely more than these):

"I can't ping. I hope you can fix this."
"I can't receive mail and since I recently upgraded to Thunderbird. Is Thunderbird compatible with our mail server?"

I am now starting to believe the fact that stupidity does not lie on the question but in the asker.

Best Regards,


Carlo Florendo
Network Administrator
Astra Philippines Inc. UP-Ayala Technopark, Diliman 1101, Quezon City

Member of the Astra Group of Companies
5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City
Tokyo 206-0011, Japan

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]