Bad function number.

[Brian K. White]

On 9/22/2016 6:45 PM, Jose Lerebours via Filepro-list wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 06:40 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
>> "My system has been kicking out errors.  And today it's not behaving
>> correctly."
>>
>> "When did the errors start?"
>>
>> "It goes back as far as the logs do."
>>
>> "What happened in the day before the first error appeared?"
>>
>> "There are no days before the errors.  Jose told me I didn't need the
>> logs."
>>
>> "Sorry, but I can't tell you why your system is misbehaving.  The
>> critical
>> data has been deleted.  Maybe Jose will look at your system for you."
> I already conceded to this, no need to fuss about it ... but, there is
> the ability to archive/save them.
>
> Some flavors of Linux do this automatically.

---
No, they don't.

This is just another perfect example of the sloppiness they are talking 
about, and why it matters.

Barring cases so special that they don't count, like a live ram distro 
that loses everything when the ram loses power, they *rotate* logs, not 
purge them. There is *always* some large amount of the most recent logs. 
Never simply all erased.

You just said something 100% false, and tried to use that 100% false 
idea as the basis for a technical decision. The fact is wrong, and so 
any decisions or actions based on it are at best unknown. Maybe ok, 
maybe disaster, might as well have thrown a dart at a random list of 
possible actions.

---
No one really cares if you copy "Repko" correctly. A baby isn't going to 
die somewhere because of it and it doesn't make you a Trump voter ;) . 
It just served as yet another exhibition of your overall tendency to 
care or lack of it, while you were in the very act of trying to defend 
the quality of your advice against an accusation that your approach 
wasn't very careful or methodical.

---
This thing about deleting the logs on one windows server is not really 
the end of the world either by itself. The point is this: If you are 
actually unsure if the log entries are really in chronological order, or 
if there might be current log entries scattered down in the middle mass 
of the list where you can't find them, such that you think it's a good 
idea to just to clear everything, "just to be sure", that is automatic 
damning evidence that you have such a poor understanding of how things 
work that you are by definition not a good source of advice on this and 
related topics.

That's harsh, but isn't namecalling. No one else makes you say the 
haphazard ideas you express. They just observe that they are haphazard, 
and that it matters, since this isn't impressionist painting.

And the real problem isn't even having a bad idea, or even giving the 
bad idea as advice to someone else. The real problem is trying to defend 
it *after* the problem has been explained.

-- 
bkw