<html><head></head><body>I don't think effort should be put into purging systemd. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On February 12, 2017 2:10:07 PM GMT+03:00, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christopher Havel<br /><laserhawk64@gmail.com> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Julie, while I appreciate your efforts at convincing our kind leader here to<br /> change his mind, you're not going to make any headway. And, for the record,<br /> one of the reasons that Luke has trouble explaining things is because he has<br /> Asperger's Syndrome, a form of Autism and a disorder primarily affecting<br /> communication and social skills. I have Asperger's as well, and so I can<br /> appreciate how it sometimes renders one speechless, or forces one to use the<br /> wrong words for things -- often at a sensitive time.<br /><br /> It's unbelievably frustrating.<br /></blockquote><br /> ... would you believe it, my conversations with dr stallman cause<br />*me* to have to take deep breaths on a regular basis.<br /><br /> chris, i appreciate your insight (from personal experience) here.<br />your phrasing is, in places, as bad as mine can be, but i know your<br />heart's in the right place.<br /><br /> it is a recurring theme from interactions with people around me that<br />they in effect ask "give me ONE good reason why i should listen to<br />you", and i simply... can't. the reason is: my brain simply doesn't<br />work that way.<br /><br /> in researching why that is, i came across something called "demster<br />shafer theory". it's a generalisation of bayes theorem, and i was<br />interested in it as a way to work out *why* i was good at<br />reverse-engineering (from my work on samba) but also to find out if<br />there was a way to *improve* my ability as a reverse-engineer and<br />knowledge derivation expert.<br /><br /> demster-shafer theory basically says that you may statistically<br />derive a result by taking two *independent* variables in a<br />massively-complex field, work out the probability of them occurring<br />together (independently) then you are permitted to *REPEAT* that<br />exercise and to *SUM* the resultant totally independent results as a<br />way to gain a statistically-valid result across the ENTIRE FIELD.<br /><br /> in this context, the question "give me ONE good reason" is a<br />completely INVALID one.<br /><br /> hence, can you (all) understand that if you ask me "give me ONE good<br />reason" i LITERALLY cannot do that. i could however give you about a<br />hundred SMALLER reasons each with a low statistical probability of<br />them occurring.<br /><br />... but it would overwhelm you to do so, you would (as you have<br />clearly done so) REJECT the entire APPROACH that i've taken because<br />it's NOT SOMETHING YOU UNDERSTAND AS BEING VALID.<br /><br />i come across this time and time again, in the physics forums i'm on,<br />on free software mailing lists, at workplaces where i can tell there's<br />something deeply wrong from a whole stack of clues but i CAN'T<br />VOCALISE THEM ALL.<br /><br />my brain *literally* works in a completely different way from most<br />people's on the planet, in a massively-parallel statistical-inference<br />fashion that hugely and rapidly short-cuts areas of avenue that would<br />cause most people to get stuck and waste months to decades of their<br />life investigating to no avail... but this type of approach is NOT<br />what the human brain was designed to do, and it comes with a heavy<br />penalty both for my health but also in terms of making it REALLY<br />difficult to justify the conclusions (or "intuitions") that my brain<br />flags up as being so brightly "red" that i can no more ignore them<br />than i could if they were say actual threats on my life.<br /><br />i would *really* appreciate your patience on this. knowing what i do<br />about myself, i deliberately tackle areas that nobody else does.<br />unfortunately, what's happened in the past is that people have stolen<br />the results and the credit for the work that i've done. did you know<br />for example that the openchange project's success is down to my work<br />(not theirs) in reverse-engineering exchange 5.5 back around 2003? of<br />course you don't... because after tracking my research continually<br />they DIDN'T MENTION WHERE THEY GOT THE INFORMATION FROM.<br /><br /> that means that you BELIEVE i am not worth respecting, because my<br />name is not up there in neon lights next to those of "linus torvalds"<br />or "eric raymond" or "bruce perens" or any other person you've heard<br />of and respect in software libre for their achievements.<br /><br />i act in the background, tackling the things that these people *CAN'T*<br />understand and, because of their position, couldn't deal with anyway<br />because they now have too much responsibility in their chosen field of<br />expertise and endeavour to consider abandoning the people who now<br />depend on them.<br /><br />put another way:<br /><br />systemd has a huge - MASSIVE - series of independent statistical<br />correlations associated with it, none of them INDIVIDUALLY being<br />statistically significant or indicative of anything (because they're<br />independent events) but when added up overall, using demster-shafer<br />theory, give support for the hypothesis that there is something<br />deeply, deeply wrong with systemd with a confidence level somewhere<br />around 4 sigma. i simply cannot ignore that, but equally i cannot<br />really explain it in ways that you would ACCEPT, either, because my<br />name is not "linus torvalds" or "dr richard stallman".<br /><br />anyway. the fact that the 3.4 kernel has to be used makes it entirely<br />moot. which reminds me the last time this happened, was when i was<br />working in portsmouth, something similar happened. i was ORDERED to<br />deploy ubuntu, but could not explain or vocalise the dozens of reasons<br />why that was a bad idea. finally one of the sysadmins got fed up of<br />hearing the discussion, did some research and found that canonical had<br />long since terminated support for 486 processors.<br /><br />so please. understand. sometimes i *can't give you a concrete<br />reason* because there are instead potentially *hundreds* of<br />lower-probability ones, some of which i'm not even consciously aware<br />of.<br /><br />l.<br /><br /><hr /><br />arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk<br /><a href="http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook">http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook</a><br />Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk</pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>