[Arm-netbook] Logging and journaling

[Allan Mwenda]

I don't think effort should be put into purging systemd. 

On February 12, 2017 2:10:07 PM GMT+03:00, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christopher Havel
><laserhawk64 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Julie, while I appreciate your efforts at convincing our kind leader
>here to
>> change his mind, you're not going to make any headway. And, for the
>record,
>> one of the reasons that Luke has trouble explaining things is because
>he has
>> Asperger's Syndrome, a form of Autism and a disorder primarily
>affecting
>> communication and social skills. I have Asperger's as well, and so I
>can
>> appreciate how it sometimes renders one speechless, or forces one to
>use the
>> wrong words for things -- often at a sensitive time.
>>
>> It's unbelievably frustrating.
>
> ... would you believe it, my conversations with dr stallman cause
>*me* to have to take deep breaths on a regular basis.
>
> chris, i appreciate your insight (from personal experience) here.
>your phrasing is, in places, as bad as mine can be, but i know your
>heart's in the right place.
>
> it is a recurring theme from interactions with people around me that
>they in effect ask "give me ONE good reason why i should listen to
>you", and i simply... can't.  the reason is: my brain simply doesn't
>work that way.
>
> in researching why that is, i came across something called "demster
>shafer theory".  it's a generalisation of bayes theorem, and i was
>interested in it as a way to work out *why* i was good at
>reverse-engineering (from my work on samba) but also to find out if
>there was a way to *improve* my ability as a reverse-engineer and
>knowledge derivation expert.
>
> demster-shafer theory basically says that you may statistically
>derive a result by taking two *independent* variables in a
>massively-complex field, work out the probability of them occurring
>together (independently) then you are permitted to *REPEAT* that
>exercise and to *SUM* the resultant totally independent results as a
>way to gain a statistically-valid result across the ENTIRE FIELD.
>
> in this context, the question "give me ONE good reason" is a
>completely INVALID one.
>
> hence, can you (all) understand that if you ask me "give me ONE good
>reason" i LITERALLY cannot do that.  i could however give you about a
>hundred SMALLER reasons each with a low statistical probability of
>them occurring.
>
>... but it would overwhelm you to do so, you would (as you have
>clearly done so) REJECT the entire APPROACH that i've taken because
>it's NOT SOMETHING YOU UNDERSTAND AS BEING VALID.
>
>i come across this time and time again, in the physics forums i'm on,
>on free software mailing lists, at workplaces where i can tell there's
>something deeply wrong from a whole stack of clues but i CAN'T
>VOCALISE THEM ALL.
>
>my brain *literally* works in a completely different way from most
>people's on the planet, in a massively-parallel statistical-inference
>fashion that hugely and rapidly short-cuts areas of avenue that would
>cause most people to get stuck and waste months to decades of their
>life investigating to no avail... but this type of approach is NOT
>what the human brain was designed to do, and it comes with a heavy
>penalty both for my health but also in terms of making it REALLY
>difficult to justify the conclusions (or "intuitions") that my brain
>flags up as being so brightly "red" that i can no more ignore them
>than i could if they were say actual threats on my life.
>
>i would *really* appreciate your patience on this.  knowing what i do
>about myself, i deliberately tackle areas that nobody else does.
>unfortunately, what's happened in the past is that people have stolen
>the results and the credit for the work that i've done.  did you know
>for example that the openchange project's success is down to my work
>(not theirs) in reverse-engineering exchange 5.5 back around 2003?  of
>course you don't... because after tracking my research continually
>they DIDN'T MENTION WHERE THEY GOT THE INFORMATION FROM.
>
> that means that you BELIEVE i am not worth respecting, because my
>name is not up there in neon lights next to those of "linus torvalds"
>or "eric raymond" or "bruce perens" or any other person you've heard
>of and respect in software libre for their achievements.
>
>i act in the background, tackling the things that these people *CAN'T*
>understand and, because of their position, couldn't deal with anyway
>because they now have too much responsibility in their chosen field of
>expertise and endeavour to consider abandoning the people who now
>depend on them.
>
>put another way:
>
>systemd has a huge - MASSIVE - series of independent statistical
>correlations associated with it, none of them INDIVIDUALLY being
>statistically significant or indicative of anything (because they're
>independent events) but when added up overall, using demster-shafer
>theory, give support for the hypothesis that there is something
>deeply, deeply wrong with systemd with a confidence level somewhere
>around 4 sigma.  i simply cannot ignore that, but equally i cannot
>really explain it in ways that you would ACCEPT, either, because my
>name is not "linus torvalds" or "dr richard stallman".
>
>anyway.  the fact that the 3.4 kernel has to be used makes it entirely
>moot.  which reminds me the last time this happened, was when i was
>working in portsmouth, something similar happened.  i was ORDERED to
>deploy ubuntu, but could not explain or vocalise the dozens of reasons
>why that was a bad idea.  finally one of the sysadmins got fed up of
>hearing the discussion, did some research and found that canonical had
>long since terminated support for 486 processors.
>
>so please.  understand.  sometimes i *can't give you a concrete
>reason* because there are instead potentially *hundreds* of
>lower-probability ones, some of which i'm not even consciously aware
>of.
>
>l.
>
>_______________________________________________
>arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
>Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20170212/21163a7b/attachment.html>