> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@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.
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk