[arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd

[Denis A. Altoé Falqueto]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> <denisfalqueto at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
>>> <denisfalqueto at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>>> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice
>>>>> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked
>>>>> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that.
>>>>
>>>> Arch's stock kernel:
>>>>
>>>> $ zgrep  CONFIG_HZ /proc/config.gz
>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set
>>>> CONFIG_HZ_300=y
>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
>>>> CONFIG_HZ=300
>>>>
>>>> Systemd is working fine enough. A counter example shoud invalidate
>>>> your argument that CONFIG_HZ is the culprit.
>>>
>>> That doesn't prove anything, your machine is not my machine.
>>
>> And you dare to call for scientific process? Your arguments are
>> general and your test universe is your machine? Oh, please.
>
> When you make a claim such as "this change won't introduce any
> regressions" the evidence of "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of
> any kind. If you have worked in any serious project you would know
> that (as many changes work on particular machines, and break in
> others). And if you know anything of the scientific process you would
> also know that "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of any kind; my
> machine detects neutrinos travel faster than light, is that proof of
> anything? No. And this goes back to basics of rationality: you can't
> prove a negative, so it doesn't matter how many data-points of
> something not happening you have, and all you need is a positive
> data-point to show that something does indeed exist (or at least it's
> as likely as the possibility of that data-point being in fact true).
>
> I'm not going to explain this again. Either you get it or you don't.

This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem
was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also
have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say
you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to
CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the
behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored.

Really, arch-general is not the same as before, and _that_ is the real problem.

-- 
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html

-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------