.exe.stackdump and core dump files questions

[Carlo Florendo]

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
>>>>> human-readable?
>>>>>           
>>>> 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

-- 
Carlo Florendo
Network Administrator
Astra Philippines Inc. 
UP-Ayala Technopark, Diliman 1101, Quezon City
Philippines
http://www.astra.ph

Member of the Astra Group of Companies
5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City
Tokyo 206-0011, Japan
http://www.astra.co.jp