From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:20:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: nosc.1992Dec11.222050.4413
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Dec11.192232.7874@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>No, much of our argument comes over my correct technical interpreation
>of the word as opposed to your JOE.BAT interpretations.
>

It's not a blame, it's an observation that I am making.  Here is a hypothetical
conversation (try to figure out who's who in the parody):

SAM:	Last time I tried DOS version 6, I had to go call the BIOS to do
	function X.  It's such a pain, I nearly slipped a disc.

BARNEY:	I think DOS 6 is not an operating system, especially if it
	trashes disks like that.  

SAM:	It doesn't do anything to disks.  Lots of people are using disks 
	successfully with DOS 6.

BARNEY:	I don't care if lots of people use disks with DOS 6, I say it
	trashes disks, so it must not be an operating system.

SAM:	But it says in "The Standard Computer Science Textbook" that
	DOS 6 uses disks just fine...

BARNEY:	I don't care what references say, only my opinion counts. I've
	trashed disks... and you even said you've trashed disks... and
	besides, what textbooks say doesn't mean a thing in The Area of
	Computer Science--only common sense does.

	(This episode of the Sam and Barney Show brought to you by
	comp.os.let.us.be.closed.minded.that.other.people.may.have.
	a.different.perspective group)

Heheheeee.  Real funny, huh?

>
>>Reuse in your context has only relatively recently been coined.  I tend to
>>use english when I'm attempting to use english.
>
>Well, that's probably a good idea when you're talking ABOUT English;
>when you're talking in a technical field, you are much better served
>to use the vocabulary and usage of the people in that field.
>

Hmmmm.  I thought that some people here may not know technical jargon...
Some may be straight people just trying to learn a few things.  I see,
my apologies, from now on, I'll speak words that only a minority of
America speaks in contexts that only a minority of people understand.
Now I see completely your animosity towards dictionaries.... dictionaries
advocate the use of common English rather than technobabble.

We mustn't speak of disc brakes--people might misinterpet that.
Or grade school "Hall Monitors..."
Or Manual Transmission...
Or re-using the handywipe instead of just throwing it away...
Or male sheep...

Fred, I AM NOT TRYING TO FIGHT.  COOL OFF, DUDE.  I am trying to point out
that our misunderstanding is because you have a narrow scope of what
an operating system is, and I have a wider scope.  You look at a word
such as "reuse" and think one thing, and I use "reuse" to mean another.

One of the major problems in Software Engineering is that it is difficult
to make statements in a way that can't be misinterpreted.  If you say it
in a "natural language" people can misunderstand because many words have
double meanings.  If you say it in a "formal language", non-technical 
people (like the customer) can't understand it.

To help ease the communication gap, we ought to be open-minded as to
what the person is trying to say.

> set up not to receive mail from you.
>>The scope of this discussion has gone way out of hand, fred.EXE,  if you wish
>>to continue your blathering, please do so in email.
>
>No thanks, Joe.  We played that game already, remember?  You just get
>pissed and start bouncing mail.  Since the last time you played that
>game, I've set my account up to refuse to accept mail from you.  I
>have no interest in your stupid little games.

Brrraaaappp.  Wrong answer.  I've never bounced any mail (but you've bounced
mine).  I see what you want to do: you want a PUBLIC WAR.  Well, I am
not going to stoop to your level of name calling (there is a difference
between saying "that's a dumb idea" and "you're a jackass").  

I've always tried to say something meaningful about the subject of computer
science--and it seems your posts are always directed at simply shouting
me down.  If you don't want to have valid debate about the subject, and
your best contribution is simply "because I say so", then don't bother
following up this article.

The original post regarded Windows being an operating system.  Since then
I've seen several threads that refered to Windows as an operating system
(and DOS as an operating system)... and none of them seem to have sparked
the flame you seem to be fanning.

If you don't think Windows is an operating system, fine.  If you don't
think DOS is an operating system, fine.  If you don't think that the
BIOS is part of the DOS operating system, fine too.

In the end, it really doesn't matter does it.

Direct your flames to /dev/nul

-> Joe <-

My opinions

>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy