On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 08:07:21PM -0500, the unit calling itself Nick Holland wrote: > > > > Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, > > until I read the man pages. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's > > easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. > > > > > > 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset" > 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 > Oh, come on. > > Your Magic Message there is subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. > Both key on missing the use of "adjusting" rather than "adjusted". As > has already been pointed out, "adjusting" implies on-going, "adjusted" > implies done. People will take "compensate" to mean "compensated" and > wonder why their clock is STILL off. That short message is technically > correct, and while it can be misinterpreted, just about every short > summary is also subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. > > The ONLY reason you think this line is better is because you didn't > understand the message and you think it isn't your fault. So you find > out what is going on, you change some words, it becomes "obvious" to > you. What you fail to see is that if you understand what is going on, > it is OBVIOUS all along. If you don't understand what is going on, it > will take several paragraphs for every log entry. > > Log entries should be clear and short:
I don't understand your logic, and your tone is abusive and confrontational. If you just want everyone to shut-up, and agree with whatever you say, you should just come out and say so. If you want to build a logical argument to support your thesis, you have fallen short. For example, your simple-minded rule for log entries... problem is that short and clear are often competing objectives. For example, from the very same logfile, let's look at an entry from dhcpd: Nov 15 04:13:30 opie dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.207 from 00:e0:4c:cf:15:90 via sis1 Now that one doesn't fit on a single line, does it? How would you propose exactly to make that entry both clear and < 80 chars? > If there is something worse than the general level of illiteracy in the > computer industry, it has to be the people PRETENDING to be > sophisticated in human communications who are actually quite inept at > it. "Discussions" like this one go so far to demonstrate this... Amen.
