From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 3 Oct 92 04:54:06 GMT
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <strobl.718060677@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>I have read this thread so far with a bit of surprise - It never occured
>to me that my short remark would trigger such a flood of hair-splitting.
>I'll try to explain what I meant and will try to comment a few of the
>following statements. 
>

Welcome back, Wolfgang.  Now, this is what I said:

>>>>>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>>>>>than windows.  Is there in t

This is what you said following up to my post:

>>>>>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>>>>>their machine, but almost never use it.

Your interpretation in the following is very good, very logical.

>Well, I immediately understood that the sentence "OS/2 is a
>totally different story. Once you install it, you use it"
>could mean two completely different things.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>First interpretation (the "technical" one): 
>
>    "It is technically impossible to have an installed copy
>    of OS/2 on a machine, without using it every time the
>    machine is switched on. This is because the machine
>    boots into OS/2, and if the people use DOS or Windows
>    afterwards, they still use the underlying OS/2 system."
>
>Second interpretation (the "statistical" one):
>
>    "OS/2 support of DOS and WIndows is so good, that, although
>    switching between OS/2 and DOS is possible through the
>    multiple boot feature, nobody ever uses it to run
>    DOS on their machine, after the initial installation."
>

My post earlier tonight, a response to Phil's post, reflect this very
fact.  I was saying that mine has to be the second interpretation.
Again, this was the difference between Phil and myself in interpreting
the statement (as I pointed out in the earlier post).

>Without knowing which of these interpretations was right,
>I thought to kill two birds with one stone, by refuting
>that statement with a single counter example which covers
>most possible interpretations.

That's fair.  You can interpret other's statement in whatever way you want,
but when you become serious about refuting it you have to go back and
think which interpretation is right, because after all you cannot
kill two birds with one stone.

>
>The technical interpretation is simple to disprove by
>providing an example, like the Wrights disproved that 
>an aeroplane was impossible, buy building one.
>
>The statistical one is a bit harder to refute, be-
>cause almost everybody reads it as "... ALMOST nobody
>ever uses it to run DOS ...", which is a quantitative,
>not a qualitative statement.

You seem to think the second interpretation is a statistical one.  I
disagree.  It's much more than that.  It's a normatively prescriptive
statement, it's an extension of what os/2 is.  It's like saying 
"coal is black".  I was using "A (all) crow is black" example to
debate Phil, but found that it was ineffective.  Blackness is, I
guess, an attribute of coal.  When I said, "when installed, os/2 is
used", I was saying that os/2 has such a quality (unlike Windows--
remember Windows was the backdrop of this statement) that when
it is installed ***it has to be used***.  Obviously, os/2 has
capabilities to allow over and beyond what it has to allow 
as an operating system that users have more than one operating
system on one machine and ***dual boot*** between them. 
But, I think dual boot capability shouldn't be the essence of
what os/2 is.  Don't you think so?

> - you don't have to believe me. 
>
>   (Do you really want to argue about that? That I can't 
>   provide two or more people who have OS/2, but don't
>   use it? You certainly are kidding, aren't you?
>   Ask somebody in your neighborhood, you will certainly
>   find one.)
>
>   Btw, I didn't make it up, believe me.

There's a limit in believing
anybody.  When the matter becomes serious, one has to produce 
evidence to support one's asserted "example."  If you want to
interpret my statement in a "technical" sense, as you do, you have
to produce supporting evidence. Right, as you said, I don't have to
believe you.  But as I said **repeatedly**, that is
not necessary, because that's not the heart of the matter.  I was 
saying in the 2nd mode and a single counterexample cannot disprove
anything in this case.  Don't you remember that I didn't even 
bother to respond to your followup to mine?

>But let me ask you one question. What would represent a valid
>counter-example, in your opinion?

I think that depends on the seriousness of the question in hand.
If the debate was on whether there really is a single user who
do not conform to the "os/2 is used once installed" category, your
counterexample is pretty effective.  In fact, I really think that
there is such a person.  But, again, that was not what I was trying
to say.  Phil, I am not retracting from my original point.  I was not
and am not simply interested in the question whether we can find
a single person out of 2 million os/2 users (well, 2 million is not
an exact figure, although I guess it's pretty close by now) who
installed os/2 on his machine and not use it.

Also, an important point is:  the whole thing must be understood in
the context in which it was said.  It was Windows versus OS/2.  The
ease and frequency by which Wind users simply install Windows and not
use it must be taken into account to understand "when installed
os/2 is used."  (Here's statistical interpretation :))
If as often alleged only 30% of Windows owners
use Windows and if among the 30% only a small percentage use it 
exclusively (in other words,  if someone turns on his computer, 
automatically starts windows and never exits from it before turning
off the computer, then he qualifies as an exclusive windows user),
this has to be a real small fraction of total windows owner (Again,
I do not have any evidence for this, but that's what I thought and
still think what's happening out there.).  It is against this 
background that "os/2 is used when installed" has to be
understood.

>
>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>


Min