because you've thought it through or yourself, weighed the balance of factors *you* are comfortable with, and come to your own conclusion. which may or may not happen to be the same.
i'm comfortable with a parallel-factors "fuzzy" approach to decision-making: it's part of reverse-engineering to consider factors that you really genuinely have no clue on, really, as to whether they're black-and-white "true" or not. but when you take 5, 10, 20, 50 or even more such "no-clue" samples and they *all* agree, that's as good an indication that the hypothesis is statistically valid as any.
and it can be a lot faster and a lot less hassle.
*but*...
you try to explain this approach to people... dang it can get ugly *real* fast. the usual sign of trouble is when people ask the question "Give Me One Good Reason". with the analysis approach that i take on "nebulous" topics, to give ONE reason is not only flat-out impossible, it's completely and utterly misleading to do so. the multi-factor signs - the entire package - *is* the "reason"... but that is not something that many people can cope with. they consider the entire approach to be deeply flawed... because there is no "rational" single factor that says black and white yes or no.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
My bad,I was just trying to say that we should trust your 20+ years of experience, considering your ethical standards in general, I thought this was a good analysis.
I see part of your point though, there are a lot more reasons... Linus at one point after all said systemd's design scope was insanely complex.
So yes, I did read up a bit on it a while ago. Should I have mentioned that? probably... but oh well too late now.