On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:21 PM, zap <calmst...@posteo.de> wrote:
> I trust Luke's judgment on systemd. If he says it is insecure and has
> 20+ background of experience, then why should we disagree with him?
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.
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.
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk