Originally posted by deanjo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostIt 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostThere 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.
Had we blindly believed it, we may as well have believed in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI know what I said, that is why I corrected to what I was referring to.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostActually you haven't proven that either. You have proven that you responded on July 1st.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostHardly. 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostThey 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostWhen will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?
After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
Comment
Comment