[arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd

[Jason Ryan]

On 15/08/12 at 08:38am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/08/12 at 04:01am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 15/08/12 at 03:35am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I just became aware that Arch Linux plans to switch to systemd, and
> >> >> this worries me for several reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> snip
> >> >
> >> > I am running it on both my home machines and my work laptop. I have full
> >> > encryption on all three devices and LVM and Raid1 on two of them. Boot time is
> >> > not considerably faster, but shutdown is.
> >> >
> >> > I have not had any problems migrating or running the three machines in the
> >> > intervening fortnight.
> >>
> >> So you have 3 data-points. There's plenty of different machines and
> >> configurations out there, and the way you present your arguments seems
> >> to suggest that because you didn't have any problems, that proves that
> >> nobody out there can *possibly* have issues with systemd.
> >>
> > No - I made no such overarching claims; I just countered your experience with my
> > own.
> 
> I see, but that is irrelevant. Yo only need one data-point to prove a
> positive, and it's impossible to prove a negative.
> 
> >> I believe the opposite; even if you have tested in one thousand
> >> machines, the *possibility* still remains.
> >
> > Yes, the possibility exists; that is hardly a reason to spread FUD on the list
> > though, is it?
> 
> So I think Arch Linux will probably hit issues, and you think it's FUD
> to say "hey Arch Linux, I think you might hit issues"?
>
You have “issues”. Your thread title, your baseless extrapolation of your own 
experience to all of Arch are classic FUD.[0]

> >> > I think your concerns are largely unfounded and your alarmist tone does no
> >> > credit to the Arch developers who have given this some consideration and have
> >> > implemented it in a typically thorough and professional manner.
> >>
> >> I tend to not believe things without evidence, and not believe because
> >> of some "authority" says it's true. I will believe there was some
> >> careful analysis, when I see the result of the analysis in a
> >> summarized form as the Google DVCS analysis. If the benefits are well
> >> known, and the disadvantages minded, it shouldn't be difficult to
> >> write such a summary. Would it?
> >>
> > I look forward to your analysis (which by your own criteria will need to include
> >  > 1000 machines, presumably); or are you expecting someone else will do this
> > to satisfy your demands for scientific rigour?
> 
> Why should I do the analysis? Are you saying that Arch Linux
> developers didn't do any analysis? Surely they did, it's just not
> summarized and publicized. 

Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth; it is (more) classic trolling.[1]


0. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
1. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

-- 

http://jasonwryan.com/  [GnuPG Key: B1BD4E40]