On 15/08/12 at 08:38am, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 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"? > 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]
