[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On linux kernel packaging issue, assuming that user is never right

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> a tapoté :

> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 01:58:29PM +0100, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> >We're all very interested in *real* evidence here, because there
>> >hasn't been any in the past. If you don't have any evidence, you can
>> >expect people to call bullshit on this.
>> I can't send any *evidence* here, but I can post my own opinions and 
>> experiences with kernels. And I'd say thats not a bullshit. Yes, that's 
>> true that performance gain isn't very big and noticeable, but after 
>> recompiling 2.4.18-bf24 from woody with my own optimisations for athlon, 
>> I noticed little speed up in compiling my programs.
> This is probably what is known as "the placebo effect".
> Human impressions of this form are always entirely disconnected with
> reality; the mind applies filters based on expectations, that throw
> them hopelessly adrift. If you build your kernel with options you
> expect to work faster, it will seem faster; if you take a pill, you
> feel better.

Why do you always assume being facing idiots?

People knows all about placebo effect, but do you have any evidence
that there is nothing more than placebo effect?

If you compile a kernel without lot of modules for hardware and stuff
you do not have, there is nothing weird to suppose it may have some
consequences at later point, by having a kernel size reduced by 25%. 

> Your perceptions are vaguely reliable for the difference between 10
> seconds and one second. They're not so good for the difference between
> one second and a half second, and they're utterly useless for the
> difference between fifteen minutes and ten (really).
> Ironically, this usually results in a small gain in productivity, but
> that isn't actually dependent on the technical change - just on the
> user believing that there was one. Large tech support teams
> occasionally do fake hardware upgrades (strip the box down and put it
> back together again) for users that complain about their personal
> system being slow, and it actually "works".

One more time, it means taking users for loosers. If someone complain
about hardware being slow, reasons may be psychological (a collegue
got a faster computer just in the next office), but you cannot assume
from that example that this kind of users complains are always for
psychological reasons. There may be also real hardware

Doing fake hardware upgrade seems a very extreme attitude (yes, it
makes of you a liar), justifiable only in extreme case (with user
which is actually a real pain). 


Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage: 		http://yeupou.coleumes.org/		|
  | Computing Homepage:		http://alberich.coleumes.org/  		|
  | Not a native english speaker:					|
  |	http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english 	|

Reply to: