Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:24:15 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Greg Barniskis" <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> 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: <00a801c6b190$bb85c170$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> References: <20060713181058.56349.qmail@web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com><002101c6af09$aacf32f0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> <44C51886.6040207@scls.lib.wi.us> <003c01c6b13b$6c38dad0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> <44C8CF82.4070201@scls.lib.wi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- 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> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? > 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, YES. Calling for testing is bullcrap. If you want to refute a statement then do your own damn testing. > 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. > The above paragraph is all true. Your attaching a true paragraph to a false "no" with a comma in order to imbue a false statement (your no) with truthfulness. Basic debating tactic. > I'm not saying there aren't problems (and I really don't think many > others are either). OK, now your negating everything you just said? > I'm just saying that finding the root cause is > not a simple matter, I never said it was. > 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. > It is an evasion if all your doing is calling for testing and not doing even some very basic basic testing - like I did - to attempt to refute or support the statement. > 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! =) > Testing and the search for the root cause doesen't question the validity of the hypothesis, why don't you understand this? testing RESULTS are what question or support the validity of the hypothesis. Until you start doing the research, gathering facts, then your just blowing air up someone's ass. > 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. Which they do by - what? Posting test results as I have done. Not by just lazily calling for test results > 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. > If they aren't interested in testing they are idiots. If a troll makes a claim like the newer versions of freeBSd are slower, and all these people who would be allies as you term them, already have test results they have made that prove the opposite, then it is fine for them to walk away. But, in this case, they don't. They just are walking away because they don't like the message or how it's presented. > 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. > Fine, then start by shredding the assumption that the newer versions of FreeBSD are faster. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00a801c6b190$bb85c170$3c01a8c0>