[arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
<denisfalqueto at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

No. You clearly don't understand how epistemology works, and I'm not
going to explain it to you. My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists
independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras