On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15/08/12 at 04:01am, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@xxxxxxxxx> 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"? >> > 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. And no, you don't need to test 1000 machines to make an analysis. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
