Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Oct 2011 21:33 UTC, submitted by mahmudinashar
Thread beginning with comment 493239
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Of course it's not proof, and the whole point of the stack is that you start at the top. As I said: blame starts at the top. You start with the thing that crashed, let the maintainer of that software figure out the root cause.
More to the point, just check out the current bugs filed against Dr Konqi: https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=drkonqi
There are several yet-to-be-fixed crashers there. To assume that the KDE software is free of bugs is just supremely naive.




Member since:
2007-02-17
If kMail happens to crash, do you immediately file a bug against the kernel, or let Intel/AMD they have a bug in their CPU? Of course not, you first blame kMail, then if the maintainer can show that it's somewhere in a library he/she passes down the stack so it can be fixed.
Thom (quite likely) found a few bugs in KDE, denying this won't help anything.
Au contraire, it is clear that no such bug exists on any of my systems, which are running the same version of KDE. None of my systems exhibit anything like the behaviour which Thom describes.
All of my well-behaved, bug-free systems and Thom's system have KDE (and KDE applications) in common.
The only thing that sets Thom's system apart is "somewhere lower in the stack".
This observation is not proof, but nevertheless it is a strong indication that the fault on Thom's system does indeed lie "somewhere lower in the stack". Certainly, given all the described symptoms (and lack thereof on other systems), that is the first place I would look.