On 10/15/18 4:26 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 15/10/2018 15:29, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Really? "... copy ... to USB ... without success" needs at least open(3) and write(3), so I could think of errors from the system like EACCES, EPERM, EISDIR, ENOTDIR, ENOSPC, EIO, etc. Or, it could have been the "I copied an ISO but it didn't boot" case. So at that point, I'd have needed some more information in order to help. That's why we already have a 20+ thread for a quite trivial case.
And that's why I continue to repeat this when someone reports a problem (also at work) without enough information: - What did I try to do? - How did I try to do it? - What result was expected? - What was the actual result? and finally - What was the error message (if any)?
Yes, really.
Always remember Ockham's Razor:
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity"
In other words, if you are faced with several alternative explanations for something, consider the simplest first. The simplest is likeliest to be true.
Removable USB disk? Large file won't copy? It's probably formatted with FAT32. Before any other more elaborate reasons, that's the simplest.
That's why it became the joke in /the IT Crowd/:
"Have you tried turning it off and back on again?"
It's the simplest fix in IT, just because it often works.
If that doesn't work, "are you _absolutely sure_ it's plugged in and turned on?"
That often works where #1 fails.
Don't waste your time and the time of the person with the problem. Start with the simplest possible explanation and test it first.
The reason I am taking the time to say this is that I found it an important life lesson, and even after 20y in my career, sometimes I forgot it myself. Like the time I spent troubleshooting a printer driver until 5AM because I didn't check it was properly plugged in. (The parallel cable was inserted enough for Windows to auto-detect the printer, but not enough to actually print to it. A true million-to-one shot. But *I didn't check.*)
Always *ALWAYS* start with the simplest stuff. William of Ockham worked it out before the year 1347 and it's still true today.
A valid point of view; still, I prefer it differently: a) when the reporter of a problem takes some time to describe the problem, then many of the problems are gone before sending. E.g. the description of your printer problem may have started with: "Printing failed, I double-checked the cables, errr ... forget about it" ;-) b) I want to fight the "XXX doesn't work - help me" attitude. People should take their time to report bugs, and not expecting the people being asked to spend more time on the issue. There's a reason why there are a lot of "how to report bugs" pages. https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug ... A common requirement is "be precise". Have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org