Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:36:50 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu, danial_thom@yahoo.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Nick Withers <nick@nickwithers.com> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <44C8CF82.4070201@scls.lib.wi.us> In-Reply-To: <003c01c6b13b$6c38dad0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> References: <20060713181058.56349.qmail@web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com><002101c6af09$aacf32f0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> <44C51886.6040207@scls.lib.wi.us> <003c01c6b13b$6c38dad0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Calling for testing is pretty much a way of excusing the claim. People > including Danial, have done the testing in the past, posted the results, > then had armchair quarterbacks pick apart the test methodology claiming > the tests were done wrong, thus irrelevant. So why even bother doing > it anymore. No, testing is the only way to isolate the root cause and get it fixed. And there must be consensus that the testing methodology is in fact valid vs. the hypothesis. Without consensus on its validity, then yes, that test /is/ irrelevant and proves nothing. That's not a reason to forego pursuit of forming an accepted test methodology, and certainly not a reason to demonize those saying that a particular test is not valid. Saying so is just another hypothesis. I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many others are either). I'm just saying that finding the root cause is not a simple matter, and that calling for consensus-approved tests and positing alternative theories isn't any kind of evasion, even if it seems on the face of it to question the very validity of the claim that there is a problem. Testing and the search for the real root cause actually must question the validity of the hypothesis and propose alternative explanations and tests. Otherwise the earth would still be flat, and we'd all be lucky to eat every day, much less work on computers! =) So, Occam's Razor just cuts and cuts and cuts, /because it has to/. Thus, anyone making a hypothesis has to be prepared to have umpteen other people attempt to shred all of their precious assumptions. Only assumptions that by consensus survive repeated attempts to shred them are actually considered to be valid. Trolls tend to cling to shredded assumptions as if they were still valid. They begin to regard the wielders of Occam's Razor as their enemies, and this causes conflict that is wholly unproductive. That's where the process really goes wrong in a big way, and the people who would be allies (in that they are in fact eager to test, isolate and fix any validated problem) will start to walk away. Shredded assumptions need to be abandoned and new testable assumptions need to be asserted. Then the shredding effort needs to start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is consensus that valid testing has in fact isolated the truth, because Occam's Razor just can't slice things any thinner. There is no other way.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44C8CF82.4070201>