From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:45:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct13.174547.26789
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <strobl.718583814@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>In <1992Oct8.165231.13973@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>In <strobl.718060677@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>>In <1992Sep30.210022.2904@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:


>>Why do you use the phrase 'every time' above?  It does not seem to me
>>to be a requirement of the initial statement, which was that if OS/2
>>is installed on their machine that they use it -- note that there is
>>NO provision of "and only it" or "to the exclusion of all else".

>This is not relevant. The question isn't whether other components
>besides OS/2 are used, as long as OS/2 is used, but whether 
>OS/2 is used at all, every time a machine with an installed OS/2
>is used. 

That is not the original question, as it appears to be written.

>I use the phrase 'every time' in order to try a more precise
>interpretation of the statement I am refering to, just
>one would try to explain the meaning of "2+2=4" by 
>"if you add two and two, the result is four, every time 
>you do it. The result doesn't depend on *why" you add,
>when you add, and how you do it".

But your 'more precise interpretation" CHANGES THE MEANING OF the
statement you are referring to.

>>Again, why this interpretation?  Nobody said they had to SOLELY use
>>OS/2 if it was installed; just that if it was installed they used it
>>some part of the time (or they wouldn't have bothered to leave it
>>installed and using up diskspace).

>Well, I seem to have missed the "some part of the time", but
>understood that it meant a different thing: that they use
>it *all* the time.

>Seriously, do you really believe that somebody would 
>post a statement like "Hey, world, I've made a
>new, never before told discovery: once you install some 
>software, it happens that you probably may use it, perhaps,
>some part of the time"? You surely are kidding, aren't you?

No, I'm not kidding at all, and this is precisely the argument with
regard to Windows usage vs Windows sales; many people own Windows, and
even have it installed on their machines, and NEVER use it.  Even
Microsoft puts the figure somewhere like 30% of Windows packages sold
are actually in use.

The discussion is whether that same reasonong should be applied to
OS/2, or whether it is reasonable to assume a far higher rate of usage
when comparing to the sales figures.

>No. Obviously, he meant: for reasons left as an exercise 
>to the readers, installation implies use.

Yes, he meant having it installed implies using it; not using it only,
to the exclusion of every other OS, but using it.

>>>Please note: what was said was a definite statement:
>>>"there doesn't exist a single machine which meets
>>>the following two conditions a) it has OS/2 installed on
>>>it and b) the installed OS/2 isn't used, at the same
>>>time", a statistical observation in disguise.

>>No, that isn't what was said.  What was said is that there doesn't
>>exist a single machine which meets the following two conditions: a) it
>>has OS/2 installed on it, and b) OS/2 is never used on that machine.

>See above. This is a very weak statement, and I don't believe
>that somebody would bother the net by publishing such a
>triviality. And, in fact, he didn't.

Then your belief would appear to be in error.  From watching the notes
go by, this is precisely the argument.  Is it reasonable to assume
that a higher proportion of OS/2 packages shipped are actually used
than the proportion of Windows packages used when compared to those
actually shipped.

You do not appear to understand the issue under discussion.

>>>The statement is easy to prove wrong by counterexample,
>>>by showing an example of a machine with an installed
>>>OS/2, which isn't used, while another operations system
>>>*is* used on that machine, at the same time.

>>Given your restatement of the original, you have proven it wrong.
>>However, that isn't what the original seemed to be saying.

>Well, so my anecdotical remark served its purpose to clarify
>the meaning of that vague statement.

No, you succeeded in CHANGING the meaning of the original statement,
and then disproving your own restatement.  This is generally referred
to as 'strawman' argument.

>>>I did that, by telling that I've seen it.

>>Except you didn't disprove the original statement, because you said
>>"ALMOST never", which implies that they DO use it, even if only
>>ocassionally. 

>It wasn't my only intention to disprove the original statement.

So what was your intention, if not to dispute the original statement?
If that was not your intention, why include the original statement at
all? 

>>>Now, I've understood that

>>> - 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.)

>>You disproved your restatement, but your restatement is not the same
>>as the original statement.  Hence, it doesn't matter whether I believe
>>you or not; your statement simply does not disprove the original
>>statement. 

>The problem with the original statement is that it is vague,
>and open for interpretation. Any interpretation isn't the
>same as the original statement. I tried to make that clear 
>by giving two possible interpretations, and treat them
>separately.

Neither one of which seemed to mean the same thing as the original
statement.  If you can arbitrarily change the meaning of what you are
given as the question, you can disprove anything.

>>>   Btw, I didn't make it up, believe me.

>>> - you can refute it as statistically insignificant.

>>>   (Sure it is. But don't disguise a statistical
>>>   argument as a technical one, then)

>>> - you can change the definitions, for example by
>>>   redefining "using" as "installed", i.e. by proving
>>>   a false statement by replacing it by a trivial
>>>   tautology.

>>This is what you seem to have done, by redefining "they use it" to
>>mean "they use ONLY it".

>Well, I didn't. I understood "they use it" as "they use it as the
>operating system on the machine in question". There are a lot of
>other things in use, no doubt, but they don't matter. 

But that's not what you are disproving.  You disproved that they
ALWAYS use it as the OS on the machine in question; a position that is
not implicit in the original statement.

>>>   (not that ingenious, imho).

>>> - or you can start to confuse the topic, for example
>>>   by claiming that the opposite of always is never,
>>>   or by proving something using the assumption that
>>>   wasting disk space is impossible (an interesting
>>>   evidence, btw.)

>>Unlikely in the extreme that someone who NEVER uses OS/2 would leave
>>it installed.  Do you really have that much disk space to waste?

>Yes, I do. Satisfied? :)

Shall I question your integrity at this point?  ;-)

>>>[...FUD deleted ...]

>>>>Well, I'm seriously suggesting that it doesn't constitute the
>>>>counter-proof of the original statement that you say it does, so
>>>>there's no need to suggest he was lying.

>>>Well, thank you.

>>>But let me ask you one question. What would represent a valid
>>>counter-example, in your opinion? Statements which can't be
>>>proven to be false serve no purpose here, imho.

>>A valid counter-example would be someone who leaves OS/2 installed on
>>his machine and NEVER uses it; not "almost never", but NEVER.

>How can you be sure that you will never use it, if it is still
>installed?  But is this a quality specifiy to OS/2?

>You can turn it as you like, the statement in question
>is either trivial or wrong.

Except that it is neither.

>>>>>     Wolfgang never made the claim that every copy of Windows sold
>>>>>was being used.  You, however, did make a similar claim about OS/2.
>>>>>He proved your statement false, but made no counterclaim.  Therefore,
>>>>>he has made no statement that you could prove wrong.

>>>>Not in what I read, he didn't (although it was probalby his intent).

>>>My intent was to provide a counter-example, no more, no less.

>>>>The quote that it is claimed that Wolfgang refuted is that people use
>>>>OS/2 AFTER IT IS INSTALLED ON THEIR MACHINES.  

>>>The statement was that ALL people use OS/2 after it is installed on
>>>their machines, all the time. 

>>That is not the statement that I saw; it is not the statement that was
>>quoted; if that was said then it is obviously wrong, else they
>>wouldn't provide things like dual-boot and there would be no people
>>who had packages that would not run under OS/2.

>You got it. Hurray!

Except you're still talking about YOUR statement, which you proved
wrong, and not the original statement, which you proved nothing about
at all. 

>>>To prove that to be wrong, one doesn't
>>>have to show that nobody uses OS/2 after it is installed on their 
>>>machines, ever. It is sufficient, for example, to show, that
>>>there *exist* people who don't use OS/2 after it is installed on
>>>their machines, sometimes. That's elementary predicate calculus.

>>Except you've redefined the problem statement from what I saw being
>>discussed. 

>See above. This is going to become repetetive.

Yes, quite.  You can have the last word, though.  If you don't
understand what the discussion was about by this point, feel free to
waste someone else's time with your misconceptions.

>>>>This is sort of
>>>>tautological, since once you install the operating system on a
>>>>machine, you either use it or you don't use the machine.  

>>>Yes, its tautological.

>>>>Of course,
>>>>there are things like 'dual boot' and such,  but this seems like a lot
>>>>of trouble to go to in order to NOT use an operating system.

>>>You sound as if you haven't seen or used it, ever.

>>Then you need to learn to listen more carefully.

>Ok, I listen. Why is dual boot "a lot of trouble to go in order to NOT
>use an operating system"? I understand it as a technical method enabling
>the user NOT to use an operation system, without uninstalling it,
>*without* a lot of trouble. Your description of "'dual boot' and such"
>doesn't fit my own experience, and I'm using them all the time.

That's nice for you.  I decided not to use OS/2 until the CSD comes
out (if then).  I took it off my machine.  After all, I only have 1.2G
of diskspace out there; why waste it?

Now, please tell me which is more trouble if you are NOT going to use
an operating system; installing it and setting up for dual boot, or
not installing it at all?  Which uses more resources, if you are NOT
going to use an operating system; leaving it installed or removing it?

ANY trouble is a lot of trouble to go to in order to NOT use the
results. 

[I suspect the problem here is that you took my statement as being
literal and elected to make a snide comment on that basis, rather than
taking it as the colloquial English usage that it was.]

-- 
"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