User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

LTTng rejection, next generation

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 7:32 UTC (Fri) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
In reply to: LTTng rejection, next generation by tbird20d
Parent article: LTTng rejection, next generation

Look at the actual uses of that term. Alt.med scam artists, newage crackpots jumping around "quantum consciousness", et revolting cetera. It's a very convenient buzzword when one wants to say "don't look at the details". Usually because looking at the details shows that grand idea is actually full of crap.

I don't know why karim had used it; I stayed out of LTT flamefests all along (and plan to stay out of those, thank you very much - I have no axe to grind there and no desire to get one). Thus the question...

As for the source of that definition... It's obviously too late to be from Bierce (the buzzword in question had been invented more than a decade after his death) and it's almost certainly modelled after The Devil's Dictionary. I can try to find where had I seen it, might have been someone's .sig. I agree with the sentiment, anyway...

Basically, as Bayesian filters go, this term is a strong indication that bullshit is coming. Not 100% certain, but then there are maillists where the words "erectile disfunction" are not 100% certain indication of spam...


(Log in to post comments)

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 18:11 UTC (Fri) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

"Basically, as Bayesian filters go, this term is a strong indication that bullshit is coming."

I see your point, but by accusing Karim of this, you just participated in the "LTT flamefests".

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 20:49 UTC (Fri) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

Except that I do not accuse him of anything... For fsck sake, imagine somebody using words "leveraging synergies" in a posting and getting in reply "what the hell?" along with a reference to e.g. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-09-05/

His overall point might or might not be valid; I don't know if the reasons for rejection of LTT had been political or not and I don't know how much merits did the thing have - both back in '98 and today. IIRC, the threads around that topic became flame-laden very fast and frankly, the quality of flames had not been high enough to read them for amusement sake. In principle, "invasive" and "monolithic" are legitimate complaints, provided that they do actually apply to patches in question. OTOH, it's not like they had been hard to throw around anyway, whether they do apply or not. My _only_ point in this reply had been "why the hell are you using that kind of buzzwords?"

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 20:53 UTC (Fri) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

s/98/99/ in the above. BTW, is there any way to edit a posting for such typos?

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 21:04 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

BTW, is there any way to edit a posting for such typos?

I sure hope not. Fixing a typo by replying to your own comment, like you have done, I believe is the best answer.

If we could edit our own posts, I could imagine that someone could modify what they wrote, to make someone who replied to them look stupid.

Anyway, I really like the way Jon has it that we must preview our posts before we publish them. I do just that. That is, I reread what I wrote before I hit "publish".

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 21:49 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> If we could edit our own posts, I could imagine that someone could modify what they wrote, to make someone who replied to them look stupid.

True, but there are reasonable mitigation strategies for that issue. Simply showing the time of the last edit solves most of the problem. For the rest, edits could be disallowed after replies are received (with a warning in the preview if a post was edited while you wrote your reply), or a different style could be used for posts which have been edited more recently than one or more of their replies. LWN could even record the history of each comment, which should be more than sufficient to keep everyone on their best behavior.

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 23:50 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

Egad that would complicate LWN. I'm sure Jon has enough to do than to add "special" features like that.

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 23:48 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

If we could edit our own posts, I could imagine that someone could modify what they wrote, to make someone who replied to them look stupid.

For example, if Karim removed the word "holistic" from his post, the rest of this thread would look silly.

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 20:59 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

Basically, as Bayesian filters go, the terms "Linux" and "tracing" are almost 100% certain that a flame war is about to happen!

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 16, 2011 22:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

My _only_ point in this reply had been "why the hell are you using that kind of buzzwords?"

I suspect he just didn't know it was a buzzword. I didn't. While I'm aware of its prominent use to refer to a nonscientific and ineffective substitute for medicine, other than that, I just recognize it by the dictionary definition posted earlier. I haven't seen it used by the folks who leverage synergies to productize their content.

LTTng rejection, next generation

Posted Dec 18, 2011 15:00 UTC (Sun) by compudj (subscriber, #43335) [Link]

Hi Al,

You stated:
"In principle, "invasive" and "monolithic" are legitimate complaints, provided that they do actually apply to patches in question."

For the records, the current incarnation of LTTng is modular and non-intrusive: it's a stand-alone package organized as a set of modules that can be used as building blocks for a tracer.

Best regards,

Mathieu


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds