On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto >> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 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. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
