[linux-elitists] Should software apologize?

Mark van Walraven mvw@wave.co.nz
Thu May 2 03:42:07 PDT 2002


On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 09:11:29PM -0400, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> Um, because it is more friendly than calling the user a moron?  I
> think more software should apologize.

I particularly like the warning in make-kpkg:

	"Warning: The file include/linux/version.h exists\n";
	"If you did not run make-kpkg clean after configuring\n";
	"the kernel with make (menu|x)?config, the chances\n";
	"are that it does not contain the appended version:\n";
	"\t\t\t\"$append_to_version\"\n";
	"If that is the case (or if you are not sure), I \n";
	"strongly recommend that you abort now. By default,\n";
	"though, I assume you know what you are doing, and I \n";
	"apologize for being so annoying. Should I abort[Ny]?\n";

To some extent the author is apologising for not inspecting version.h,
but the tone of the second-to-last sentence appeals to me.  (I strongly
dislike software needlessly blocking me from a correct action that it
thinks is wrong).

Regards,

Mark.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list