Ron Johnson put forth on 4/4/2010 9:08 PM: > On 2010-04-04 17:19, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> With some Google help I figured out how to fix the missing >> /var/lib/dpkg/available problem and got lshw removed. Hopefully >> there's no >> remaining hidden damage on my server. I don't think I'll ever be messing >> with lshw again. It could be that it expects something my old server >> doesn't have, and locks the machine when attempting to probe said >> non-existent device. Regardless, a production level (stable) information >> gathering tool should never hard lock a machine, no matter what, nor >> cause >> any kind of damage. I could understand installing a beta device driver >> doing this, but an information gathering tool causing a lockup? > > Bah. lshw has been around for many years.
So you're saying it's mature merely due to longevity? Mature software doesn't hard lock a system. If it does, it's not mature, obviously. >> In summary, based on my experience, I'd recommend everyone stay away from >> lshw and use dmidecode or other tools instead. lshw isn't worth the >> risk. > > That's an awfully absolute statement based upon one data point. It's the severity of the data point, not the quantity. 100 men throw gasoline on a fire and don't get burned. The 101st throws the gas on and gets killed as a result. This death is why your grandfather, father, and every other man in your life says "Don't throw gas on a fire." It's the dire result of that 1/100 chance that prompts the absolute statement, which is correct given the severity of the outcome. Your analogy, regardless of how cute, sarcastic, and applicable you believe it to be doesn't fit. If I run lshw, it will lock the system every time, not only after adding salt to the machine for 40 years. ;) -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb95c4b.9090...@hardwarefreak.com
