Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubbard Asks FreeBSD Hackers To Rename EDOOFUS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sounds-fair-enough dept.

MobyTurbo writes "Jordan K. Hubbard, on instruction from Apple, had to inform the freebsd-hackers list that the error, pointed to by the error message number named EDOOFUS, must be changed. Several interesting suggestions have been made in the resulting thread."

5 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Call for opinions by PD · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously the kernel developers need OUR help to sort this sorry mess out. Everyone, please make a google news account ASAP and put your two cents in. If all of us together put our minds to it, and posted our opinions on that thread, I'm sure they would appreciate our help in solving this problem quickly and efficiently. Thanks.

    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  2. From the Thread: by big_groo · · Score: 4, Funny
    This is my favorite response:

    From: Michael Meltzer (mjm@michaelmeltzer.com) Subject: Re: A modest proposal for better errno values...

    View this article only Newsgroups: fa.freebsd.hackers Date: 2003-05-13 16:58:07 PST

    > #define EDOOFUS 88 /* Programming error */

    #define E370HSSV 88 /* Programming error */

    I think this one keeps the orinigal sprite of EDOOFUS, I will now crawl back into my cave :-)

    MJM

    PS. For the non dyslexics try reading it upsidedown.

    Priceless...

  3. EUSERERR? by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, shift the blame from the programmer (/* Programming error */) to the user(EUSERERR)

  4. Re:compromise by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    EdoofusBSD is dead!

    --
    Ron Paul 2012
  5. I was sold on EDONTPANIC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...as soon as I saw this post:
    In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer
    Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, FreeBSD has already supplanted
    the great UNIX[R] as the standard repository of all knowledge
    and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains
    much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it
    scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important
    respects.

    First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the error
    EDONTPANIC inscribed in large friendly letters in its source.