To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree with the grand-parent, you haven't demonstrated a sound approach to bug hunting. You've basically just shown that you're going to divert blame from KDE no matter what. The only solid crash-information that Thom provided was that the crash-handler crashed, and your diagnosis was "the kernel or some hardware". The fact that Thom blamed KDE was the right thing to do! Even if he's wrong, you start with the thing that crashed: if KMail crashes blame KMail first, if Dolphin crashes, blame Dolphin.
Just open up the KDE bug tracker, you'll find a bunch of reasons why applications could have crashed. You can't take bugs in KDE as a person affront to your virtue.
The KDE devs could certainly never take your "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" approach, if they want the fruits of their labour to improve.
I think you're just offended that people rag on KDE once in a while and you try to somehow balance it out by claiming there are no problems because YOU didn't see them. Then again, you rag on GNOME once in a while too; probably just a case of some confirmation bias.




Member since:
2007-02-17
Au contraire I have many years experience at debugging and fixing software, even on real-time systems, highly complex systems and embedded systems (where diagnostic tools are often minimal, and bugs are very hard to track down).
The very first step is to figure out when and where it works, and when and where it doesn't work. Once you can reliably make it fail, the next step is to figure out what is different about when and where it fails compared to when and where it doesn't.
If there are a lot of different systems where it doesn't fail, and a few where it does, then by far the most likely site of the fault is in the places where the systems differ, rather than the places where they are common.
Der. Let me teach you how to suck eggs ...
Edited 2011-10-17 22:17 UTC