From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.190617.10682@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>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.

Hey, that's what I said in the first part.  As a proposition if you
say "A (all) crow is black" can be falsified by a single white crow.
But in the second case, if "a crow is black"  ****by definition***
(Well, this could be a very bad example, I understand.  But let's say
there's a genetic priciple that makes all crow black), then a single
white crow is not a proof that "a (all) crow is black" is false.  In
other words, a white crow should be treated as a error, a mistake,
a mutant.

>     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.

If you install os/2 on a single partition that takes up all your
hard disk, your argument seems to fail all too easily.  This in fact
is a perferred way of installing an os.  That's why you need to low and
high format a disk to install an os, which is exactly what I did when
I installed os/2 2.0.  Now, the fact that one can have os/2 but not use 
it is ***due to the nice considerateness of people who designed os/2, 
not due to its limitation nor to its inherent flaw. ***
OS/2 doesn't need DOS to boot up.   So if you insist that I stick to
the words that I said, "If os/2 is installed, it is used" can be falsified
by a sinlge person who has os/2 installed but boot into DOS.  But,
as I said explicitly in my previous post, ***what I communicated****
still stands.  OS/2 as a true operating system not like Windows
(which has to be launched from DOS), is meant to be used when installed.
It is not an application program. 

BTW, when I said "used", it has different meaning for Windows and for
os/2.  For os/2 to be used, one has to "boot into" os/2.  For Windows
to be "used", one just uses it as one uses any other application (that
is to say, you start it from a DOS prompt).  You do not need to boot
the whole computer again.  

>
>
>>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.

Definitely.  What then is a modal definition of an operating system as
opposed to an application?  

>
>
>>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?

See above.  I am not contradicting myself here.  Again, you seem to be
playing on words.  I was saying this all along.  And you need to read it
in perspective. See below also.

>
>
>>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.

Nope, I did not set the definition.  It's rather an agreed upon 
expectation and what people normally do with operating systems.

>
>
>>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.

No, it's just a reminder, in case you don't know.  And also it is
something that I find anew everyday, and it is 
why os/2 is so valuable to me.  As you said, it is just my opinion.


>>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.

Read on.  That's what I am going to say in the next sentence!!!!!!

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

[Let's bracket this.  My argument goes on below.
>
>     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."  

I think this thing is not about credibility.  I said in the parenthesis
that I would report 100 cases in separate posts.  In other words,
if you find Wolfgang's case reasonable and believable, then you lose
any ground in front of 100 separate case reports because by the
same logic these 100 single case reports should all be reasonable and
credible in its own way.  Go on and read below.  I am pointing out
that neither Wolfgang's nor my 100 cases cannot be used in a debate
like this as an effective proving or disproving a position.
]

>>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?

Again, is there any reason why Wolfgan's case is more reasonable than
my single case (reported in 100 different instances) in any single point
in time is??????????????????? 

>
>
>>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

In fact, this was one way of resisting even harsher parting shot.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy