[jacquesm]

> I'm a scientist

I've never come across a scientist that took criticism of their work the way you do and that responded in the way you do. Shouting down, deriding, insulting and in general being a jerk to those that don't agree with you because 'you're a scientist' is not the way of science.

[starkfist]

I dunno, that is how a lot of scientists I know interact with people. :/

[jacquesm]

That's pretty sad.

[zedshaw]

I'm shouting you down because you're a FUD slinging troll. Very first thing you did was immediately reply to every branch of the comments with your agenda. I actually have no idea what your problem is, since I'm just presenting some information and working on my own software with it, but you've got some weird "epoll religion" you like to spread.

So, consider me the Richard Dawkins of epoll.

[nkurz]

Zed, you might reconsider your social strategy. Your article lays out a brilliant theoretical approach, but it's hard figure out how to apply it without more real-world data. Pragmatically, it seems like your goal should be to encourage others who are in a position to gather this data to do so, and to share it with you.

It looks like Jacques looks has a pretty good start at making these measurements: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1573145. If the numbers he provides aren't helpful, or aren't complete, you might try encouraging him to fix them. Calling him a "FUD slinging troll" seems more likely to cause him to tune out and ignore you, to the detriment of us all.

Realize that you've been thinking about this problem for a while now, while others have just started their thought process. Your goal is to get them up to speed so they can move your argument further, but this won't be instantaneous. Treating them as potential allies during this formative stage might pay off. If you can hold off with the insults for a couple hours or even days, you might get better results than if you shout them down immediately. :)

[Confusion]

  Very first thing you did was immediately reply to every branch of the
  comments with your agenda.

You're suffering from paranoia. If you post an article about security, you can bet tptacek is all over the comments, informing and correcting people. In this case, the article was about something jacquesm happens to know a bit about, so he participates actively in the comments. To suggest he is pushing an 'agenda' is ridiculous: there's nothing at stake for him. The only thing he tries to do is help you, by noting that he thinks you have overlooked something.

  I actually have no idea what your problem is [..]

That's because he doesn't have a problem: it's your mind that's filling in the blanks. It suggests that while writing the article, you were already sure people would challenge you based on 'religious conviction' instead of on fact. jacquesm's point was a simple, critical question: what are actual real-world ATR's for the servers that Mongrel2 should be able to replace?

Allow me to make an observation of a psychological nature: you are thoroughly miffed that it was so easy for someone to provide possibly devastating criticism to an idea about which you started caring WAY to much. What you should realize it nobody thinks lesser of you because of that criticism: the article is still interesting and provides a sound basis. There is no reason to react in such a aggressive way; it's even counterproductive.