Messages in this thread | | | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: The tainted message | Date | Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:11:48 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:42:32 +0200, tomas szepe <kala@pinerecords.com> wrote:
>> tomas szepe Awoke this dragon, who will now respond: >> >> > > Warning: The module (%s) does not seem to have a compatible license. >> > > Please contact the supplier of this module regarding any >> > > problems, or reproduce the problem after rebooting without >> > > ever loading this module. >> > > >> > > shorter? >> > >> > I don't think you can strip the part about open-ness of the code -- >> > it's an essential part of the explanation. And "any problems" might >> > be too broad. >> >> Moreover, I think the 'compatible license thing doesnt fly. >> >> the argument against CLOSE modules is that they make the _whole_package_ >> undebuggable. >> >> if the source is available, no matter HOW crippling its license, the >> package _IS_ debuggable. >> >> thie warning should be: >> >> Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will make >> your kernel un-debuggable. Please do not submit bug reports from a kernel >> with this module loaded, as they will be useless, and likely ignored. > >Very good! I'd only change the tense to "The non-opensource module %s is >about to be loaded, which will make your kernel impossible to debug," so >that it's crystal clear that the message is not a failure notification.
Pschologically it would be better to phrase it as a postive statement.
Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will make your kernel un-debuggable. Before reporting problems to Linux-kernel, please replicate the problem without the module loaded.
john alvord - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |