Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 145

Thread: The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    You are the one that offered it as "proof". All it proves it that you posted it post article.
    It is proof that I said it, which was what I aimed to prove. The timing of the post is irrelevant, however I have also proven that I read the article July 1st which is when I read the comments and saw your personal attack.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    I was unwilling to accept that it existed until it was proven to exist based on my applied testing that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it didn't impact the portable computers that I tested it on. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory or in practice.
    There is something very wrong with that. Unwillingness to accept that an issue exists because it doesn't effect you is a piss poor way of trouble shooting. It is neither analytical, open minded, or beneficial to any party.


    That isn't what you said. What you said was:

    Actually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.

    My very first comment in relation to this "regression" was in April, it isn't too much to ask for to ask for the bug to be identified a few months later.
    I know what I said, that is why I corrected to what I was referring to.
    Last edited by deanjo; 07-05-2011 at 12:03 PM. Reason: double wordage

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    It is proof that I said it, which was what I aimed to prove. The timing of the post is irrelevant, however I have also proven that I read the article July 1st which is when I read the comments and saw your personal attack.
    Actually you haven't proven that either. You have proven that you responded on July 1st.

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    There is something very wrong with that. Unwillingness to accept that an issue exists that doesn't effect you doesn't exist is a piss poor way of trouble shooting. It is neither analytical, open minded, or beneficial to any party.
    Hardly. Until it is proven, it is only a theory. Had Phoronix implied that it was a theory, my opinion would have been different. The articles (all of them) claimed that it existed.

    Had we blindly believed it, we may as well have believed in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.


    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I know what I said, that is why I corrected to what I was referring to.
    Sorry, you can't correct the context of your statement after the fact because you have already said it.

    That's the same logic you tried to apply to me, if the shoe fits, wear it.

    (fifth request)

    One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?

    Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Actually you haven't proven that either. You have proven that you responded on July 1st.
    Believe what you want, if you want to believe that I read it sooner (without any evidence to that effect) well then I guess there is a high probability that you would also believe in the tooth fairy.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Fewt and Deanjo. Please use PM for this discussion.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    Hardly. Until it is proven, it is only a theory. Had Phoronix implied that it was a theory, my opinion would have been different. The articles (all of them) claimed that it existed.
    They had proof that it did exist, that was the whole reason why the article was written. What they did not have was the cause isolated. You do not need a cure or isolate a cause for a disease for a disease to exist.



    Sorry, you can't correct the context of your statement after the fact because you have already said it.

    That's the same logic you tried to apply to me, if the shoe fits, wear it.
    I'm not disputing your reply. I should have clarified it more to which post I was referring to.

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    They had proof that it did exist, that was the whole reason why the article was written. What they did not have was the cause isolated. You do not need a cure or isolate a cause for a disease for a disease to exist.
    You still have to have ample evidence that a disease exists before it is classified as a disease. A single test using software written by Phoronix doesn't really make the case because it is a conflict of interest, and no third party validation was performed.

    It was a non-scientific test at best, and riddled with doubt.

    You can't just say "omg disease" and it be a disease.

    Had ample evidence been presented and validated I wouldn't argue against it, however in reviewing the bug reports at Launchpad I found most of them to be the result of improper testing.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    You still have to have ample evidence that a disease exists before it is classified as a disease. A single test using software written by Phoronix doesn't really make the case because it is a conflict of interest, and no third party validation was performed.
    Oh please, PTS is an aggregate of third party benchmarks that puts the results in a unified form. Third party validations has been done by a number of users.

    It was a non-scientific test at best, and riddled with doubt.
    You say it is non-scientific but yet you deny existence of anything you have not experienced. The basis of all science stems from one question "I do not know." It does not deny anything until every avenue and data set has been confirmed, cross checked and proven without doubt. Until that happens it is a theory.

    You can't just say "omg disease" and it be a disease.
    The point is that you cannot say if it is or not, just that you simply do not know. However you can make observations saying "i think something is wrong" and that does warrant further investigation.

    Had ample evidence been presented and validated I wouldn't argue against it, however in reviewing the bug reports at Launchpad I found most of them to be the result of improper testing.
    "Most" is not all. Until you can say "all" there is always a possibility of an issue that you have not known about.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fewt View Post
    When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?

    After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=OTYwNA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •