From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:06:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.005053.5745@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>     You didn't use an example - you made a statement.  "OS/2 is a
>>totally different story.  Once you install it, you use it."  Your
>>statement has been proven false by counterexample.  Why are you
>>having a hard time understanding that?
>
>Yes, I made a statement in the portion of the text left on the Wolfgang's
>followup, which doesn't contain your name and the questions that I raised
>to you.  That deleted part is the meat, and it contains examples and
>questions.  And I couldn't care less if my statement quoted in your
>followup is proven false or not, because it is not that I want to direct
>your attention to.  Please don't just play on words.  Argue with substance.

     Ah - I understand then.  You write without thinking, then expect
people to ignore any inconsistencies.  Interesting debating tactic,
there - relying on your opponent's tolerance for ignorance.


>Again, going back to my statement "os/2 is .... once you install it, you 
>use it".  I think I still feel that I am right in saying it.  How many
>cases do you need to prove it false?  Well, let's find a similar but
>simpler case here.
>
>"A crow is black" is a statement that can be proven false by a single
>non-black crow.  But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a crow is
>genetically a black species.  Thus a crow is by definition black.  Now,
>if I hit upon a white crow, which must be some kind of bad mutant.  Do
>you think in this case "a crow is black" can be falsified?

     There are two ways in which your example statement can be
interpreted, depending on the use of the article "A".  If "A" actually
means "All", then your statement is very easily proven false by
counterexample, and is false in your example above.  If "A" refers to
a single bird, however, then you only need to demonstrate a single
black crow to prove it true.
     In your OS/2 statement, I read the statement as meaning, essentially,
"All copies of OS/2 installed are in use." which has been proven
false.  If you actually meant "There is at least one copy of OS/2
installed and in use," then I retract my objections - you are
obviously correct.


>In case you don't understand, we are dealing with definition here, not
>proposition. A proposition is a statement that can be proven to be false,
>but a definition can be bad but not something that can be proven true or
>false.  Now, an operating system is such that if it is installed it is sure
>to be used.  That's why it is installed in the first place.  This is the
>difference between an ordinary application and an operating system.

     The usage of an "operating system" is not part of its definition
at all.  I have a machine that dual boots Windows NT and DOS.  Only
one of those operating systems is in use at a time.  They are both
operating systems, regardless.
     It would make me very, very happy if someone would post a
consistent definition of "operating system" that we could all agree
on and use throughout the newsgroup.  I suspect it won't happen,
though - it seems that most of the definitions I've seen here and
elsewhere are constructed to fit an agenda.


>OS/2 can surely be installed and not used.  But this shouldn't be understood
>as os/2 can be installed and used only occasionally as Widnows does, 
>simply because os/2's ability to dual-boot to dos (or it's ability to
>boot from boot manager) is a very kind and user-friendly add-on to a
>bona fide operating system that is meant to be used when installed.

      So now you are stating that OS/2 can indeed be installed and
not used, contradicting what you said in the previous paragraph.
Is this another example of me missing the "meat" of your post?


>Thus, if there is a person who installed os/2 and do not use it, or use
>it only occasionally, I think this person is ***like the white crowd, a
>bad mutant***, not the original black crow.  So, still I feel that I
>didn't make any mistake in saying "when it comes to os/2, if you
>install it, you use it".  That's true by definition.

     It's only true by definition if you set the definition.


>BTW, in case, you still don't know, I remind you that os/2 2.0 is
>***better DOS than DOS and definitely better WINDOWS than WINDOWS***.

      This, once again, is not a statement of fact or logic, but
a statement of opinion.  Since "better" is ill-defined, you won't
be able to support this.


>I am trying Win-os2 3.1 (Windows 3.1 that will come with os/2 2.01),
>and it is even faster than the original!!!!!

      I haven't seen benchmarks yet, but it would surprise me if
it was.


>>     I have supported my assertion in a previous post.
>
>Hey, I followed every single post from you in this thread and you didn't 
>do that.  

     I'll see if it has expired here - if it hasn't, I'll mail you a
copy.


>You again didn't follow what I mean.  Wolfgang said he saw so and so not
>using os/2 after installing it.  I can just report one hundred cases of
>case where windows is installed and not used in 100 followups to Wolfgang's
>message.

      Saying something many times does not make it true.


>  You obviously didn't require an evidence for Wolfgang's anecdote
>(instead you asked if I think he way lying.......).

     I found his assertion (that he knows of a user who has installed
OS/2 but does not use it) to be quite reasonable and believable.
I find yours (that you can report 100 cases where Windows is
installed but not used for every case of OS/2 not in use) to be less
believable - in fact, I find it to be of the same order as "Elvis
is alive."  


>In other words, anecdotes do not count in a debate like this.

     This depends on the anecdote, and on the credibility of the
person presenting the anecdote.  I'm sure that if I asked Wolfgang,
he could provide me with the name of a person who has installed
OS/2 but isn't using it.  If asked, could you provide me with
100 names?


>It's marvelous that you require an evidence for such a statement.

     I require evidence for statements which I feel to be unfounded
and unbelievable.  This seems like a sane policy to me, and it keeps
me from looking like a fool for believing something proven to be
false.


>Be smarter next time.  

     Can't resist that parting shot, eh?

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy