Mike McCarty wrote:
> Also, that this is THE GIMPS list.
and
> THIS is the GIMPS forum.
and
> Or is this forum mis-named? I suppose that is a possibility.
> Here I've been subscribed for years, thinking this is THE GIMPS
> forum. Is it not?
and
> Unless, of course, this is not THE GIMPS forum, and I have
> made an inaccurate assumption about what this forum is. If this
> is not, in fact, THE GIMPS forum, then I suggest that its name
> be changed forthwith, as it is misleading.
and
> and that anything placed here is intended for information for
> those who use, and administer
Ah ... _there_ may be the basis of most misunderstandings.
It's true that this is the only mailing list I know of that is specifically
about GIMPS.
But this is not the "GIMPS forum". That is an online interactive forum at
mersenneforum.org. I have never seen this mailing list referred to as the
"GIMPS forum".
This mailing list is the successor to a mailing list that used to be the only
means of interactive GIMPS communications, other than e-mail. (Occasional
newsletters and the mersenne.org site were one-way.)
In 2003, mersenneforum.org was registered and set up as an online interactive
forum for GIMPS. That forum soon became the first choice of most GIMPS
communicants. At some time in 2003 one or more GIMPS administrators announced
on that predecessor mailing list that they were switching to the online forum
for most GIMPS discussion and announcements.
There were some objections from those for which the mailing list was much more
desirable or even feasible (the cost of dialup access for some made forum
browsing infeasible). For a short while, I tried to keep the two media in
touch by quoting significant postings from each medium to the other, but that
became too time-consuming for me to uphold. After a further while, the
provider of means for supporting that mailing list decided that the remaining
mailing list traffic was insufficient for him to continue providing that
support, and thus ended that first mailing list.
A short time later, another enthusiast made mailing list support available,
based at his hogranch.com site, and began the current list on which you read
this.
I have seen this current list called "Prime mailing list" or
"prime@hogranch.com" or just "Prime". I don't recall having seen it referred
to as the (or an) official GIMPS mailing list, but perhaps it is so
characterized somewhere I haven't seen. I haven't seen this mailing list
referred-to as the GIMPS "forum", but perhaps it is so characterized somewhere
I haven't seen. I'd appreciate being informed of any such occurrences, so that
I can pass clarification requests on to others at mersenneforum.org.
As of before the v4 crash, the (former) GIMPS home page at www.mersenne.org had
a link to mersenneforum.org in one of its paragraphs. There was a mention
somewhere (perhaps not on the home page) of a mailing list, which (when the
original list existed) used to link to where one could subscribe. I do not
recall for sure whether or not that reference to a mailing list was changed to
link to hogranch.com.
So, it looks to me like almost all the other misunderstandings and
disagreements we've had are attributable to not knowing that mersenneforum.org
has been for five years the principal and "official" forum for communication
about things like v4->v5 transition.
I'm not saying that answers to all your questions are already posted at
mersenneforum.org; I'm saying that that's the best place to post your questions
to get the answers you need.
I am neither an administrator nor a server expert, and have never claimed to be
either.
I'm a long-time GIMPS participant who wants to help communication and provide
answers when I can. In the course of doing that, I write statements that I
believe to be true, but could be mistaken.
At one point, you wrote:
"Second, I have evidence that either:
(1) they don't do appropriate backups, or
(2) they don't have control of their own machines, or
(3) they don't understand NAT and IP address spoofing, or
(4) they did not anticipate that anyone would object, or
(5) some other thing that I haven't thought of is intervening."
That doesn't actually present any evidence. What that is, is a declaration
that you possess evidence that supports the logical OR of five possibilities.
It is not a description of the evidence itself.
Later, you wrote:
"In fact, I already stated what evidence I have."
I must have missed seeing that statement of evidence. You seem not to have
personally witnessed the presence or absence of data backups or content of any
PrimeNet plans. As far as I can tell, you made some invalid extrapolations
from statements I made.
For instance, I wrote that data was not lost because the v4 system used RAID.
I didn't mention data backups because I have no specific knowlege of what
PrimeNet does in regard to data backups. Now, it's true that the first
statement (data not lost) is a supposition of mine, rather than actual direct
knowledge, but I'm very certain I read some administrator's statement to that
effect soon after the crash, so I felt comfortable stating it as unqualified
fact. Also, it's completely consistent with all I've read since then. My hand
is available for slapping in case it turns out that my declaration was false.
Note that if a data backup were made at, say, 0200, and the disk failure
occurred at 0700, the backup would not contain any of the new data communicated
to the server between 0200 and 0700. Had there been only single disks used,
data from 0200 to 0700 could have been lost. The use of RAID was, it seemed to
me, a better guarantee against some aspects of data loss than the presence of
data backups, so I didn't feel any need to mention the latter.
At another point in your message is this:
">> I am _shocked_ and _dismayed_ (not _angry_) that this was, apparently,
>> not done.
>
> Do you have any actual evidence that what you allege was not done
> was, in reality, not done? If so, what is that evidence?
I don't understand why you would object to my statement. It is
carefully qualified. What I allege is
this was, apparently, not done
Now, since I am the only competent judge of what is apparent to me,
I don't see how anyone could dispute the correctness of that statement."
A) I didn't object to your statement. I simply asked a question related to it.
B) I didn't challenge your truthfulness about what was apparent to you. I just
asked whether you had "actual" evidence of something other than the appearance
alone.
The inclusion of "actual" could be provocative, but it seemed to me (and still
does) that you were not sufficiently distinguishing between (a) evidence of
certain things, and (b) your own conclusions about those things.
Elsewhere, you wrote:
"My expectation includes not only that backups exist,
but that a plan of action including them be in place, that
such plan of action, when carried out, would result in that the
current, supported server would suffer momentary interruption,
not unexpected termination, in a circumstance such as this.
So, I can, in fact, state categorically that PrimeNet admins'
plan does not meet my expectation in this regard. Since I am
the sole arbiter of what my expectation is, that should be the
last word on whether it be met."
There is a logical fallacy in the second paragraph. The following things exist
--
1. Your expectation
2. the PrimeNet admins' plan
You have, of course, knowlege of the first. But you've never presented
evidence that you have knowledge of the second. You've presented some of your
deductions and conclusions about what you hypothesize to be #2, but never any
statement of actual knowledge. Perhaps your deductions are all correct, but
you haven't presented any evidence of that.
Where you wrote,
"So, I can, in fact, state categorically that PrimeNet admins' plan does not
meet my expectation in this regard",
it seems that a correct atatement would be:
"So, I can, in fact, state categorically that my deductions, conclusions and
hypothesis about the PrimeNet admins' plan do not meet my expectation in this
regard."
... and you would be correct about your being the sole arbiter of _that_
statement.
But the statement you wrote refers to the actual contents ("PrimeNet admins'
plan") of the plan, and you haven't shown us any evidence that you know that
content (of the real plan, not your hypothesized one).
Later, you wrote:
"> remarks about PrimeNet administration without having presented any
> evidence that such remarks are justified, it is entirely appropriate
> to expect you to promptly present or describe the actual evidence you
> have to justify those remarks.
Erm, your messages? The public statements to the effect that
it is impossible to run v4 and v5 servers on the same machine,"
So, at last you do cite evidence, so we can get somewhere. Unfortunately, this
evidence is only the words of someone who is not, and has never claimed to be,
either a PrimeNet administrator or an expert on servers. I stated what I
thought to be true, but I could have been mistaken.
>From the totality of what I've read that you've posted, it seems that you have
>based a lot of conclusions (whether stated conditionally or not) on the
>suppositions that this mailing list constitutes the official GIMPS "forum",
>that my statements officially represent GIMPS, and that you have correctly
>interpreted my statements, rather than on any factual evidence you have.
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
Prime@hogranch.com
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
