[Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to knock down skittles -- I'm trying to see whether what
> you're saying has any substance behind it, or is simply hand waving.

 one of the things that i am learning - 47 in a week's time - is that
it's best if i mention some things - some clues - then let people work
out the details.  usually the topic that i pick is sufficiently
controversial to others (for example, taking on intel.  or microsoft)
that it freaks people out and they unfortunately *automatically*
become defensive... or look for ways to dismiss what i'm saying.

 with my "detection" system being such a semi-accurate parallel
"breadth first, multiple independent sources confirmation" one instead
of "depth-first, accurate detais" as is the case with so many other
people (including you, phil), there is *no point* in me trying to
answer your question.

 (a) i will get the details wrong.  this will only lessen the value of
the discussion.
 (b) you will consider the assessment to be so low risk as to be
worthless evaluating
 (c) by the time we've gone through even *three* of the [at least
fifteen in this case] multiple independent sources, you'll be driven
*so up the wall* that it becomes counter-productive to continue.

in each and every case, you will ONE HUNDRED PERCENT conclude that
there is, far from being ANY value to what i'm saying, that EVERYTHING
i am saying demonstrates one hundred percent THE OPPOSITE.

 (a) no accurate details.
 (b) zero risk
 (c) pointless continuing to discuss further

 now.  knowing that, i really cannot answer your question knowing that
even attempting to do so would result in you concluding that the
assessment (and the assessment methodology) are both completely
flawed, 100%.

 so it would be best if i left it to you - and to others - to utilise
the information and leads that i've given to make your *own*
assessment.

 as a reverse-engineer, i can foresee that the trainwreck *is* going
to happen. i can't keep telling people that, though.

l.