Re: The tainted message

[John Alvord <jalvo@mbay.net>]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:42:32 +0200, tomas szepe <kala@pinerecords.com>
wrote:

>> tomas szepe Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
>> 
>> >  > Warning: The module (%s) does not seem to have a compatible license.
>> >  >          Please contact the supplier of this module regarding any
>> >  >          problems, or reproduce the problem after rebooting without
>> >  >          ever loading this module.
>> >  > 
>> >  > shorter?
>> > 
>> >  I don't think you can strip the part about open-ness of the code --
>> >  it's an essential part of the explanation. And "any problems" might
>> >  be too broad.
>> 
>> Moreover, I think the 'compatible license thing doesnt fly.
>> 
>> the argument against CLOSE modules is that they make the _whole_package_
>> undebuggable.
>> 
>> if the source is available, no matter HOW crippling its license, the
>> package _IS_ debuggable.
>> 
>> thie warning should be:
>> 
>> Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will make
>> your kernel un-debuggable. Please do not submit bug reports from a kernel
>> with this module loaded, as they will be useless, and likely ignored.
>
>Very good! I'd only change the tense to "The non-opensource module %s is
>about to be loaded, which will make your kernel impossible to debug," so
>that it's crystal clear that the message is not a failure notification.

Pschologically it would be better to phrase it as a postive statement.

Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will
make your kernel un-debuggable. Before reporting problems to
Linux-kernel, please replicate the problem without the module loaded. 

john alvord