From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 02 Oct 92 17:22:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Last post on this topic.  At least from me.


In article <1992Oct1.071338.7013@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.190617.10682@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>     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.

     If your definition of a crow includes "a crow is black", and
someone produces a white crow, then you need to rework your
definition, as it is clearly flawed.  If your definition of a
crow includes "a crow is black except for errors, mistakes, and
mutants", then the white crow is already included and your
definition is fine.


>>     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.

      It is not the only way to install an OS, however.


>  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.

      You don't necessarily need to low level format a disk to
install an OS.  You don't even need to high-level format - I installed
Windows NT onto an existing DOS Fat partition, and it works just
dandy.


>  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. ***

      Irrelevant.  You said "if you have installed OS/2, you are
using it."  Not true.


>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.

     Do you retract your statement, then?


>  But,
>as I said explicitly in my previous post, ***what I communicated****
>still stands.

      What you attempted to communicate, you mean.


>  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. 

     Please show me any definition of an operating system that says
it needs to boot on its own.


>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.  

      Also irrelevant.


>>     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?  

     The most common definition of an operating system that I've seen
is:
	"Operating systems have two main roles:  (1) the provide
services for users to simplify their tasks, and (2) they manage system
resources to assure efficient operation."

  Bic, Lubomir and Shaw, Alan, _The_Logical_Design_of_Operating_
Systems_, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs New Jersey, 1988. p. 35.

     If anyone has a better definition, I'd be happy to hear it.  By
the definition above, though, both Windows and OS/2 are operating
systems.


>>>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.

     What is the definition, then?  And who set it, if not you?
It seems like the person deciding the "expectation" and "what
people normally do with operating systems" here is yourself, yes?


>[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.

     You're missing the point - in order to prove that every copy
of OS/2 that has been installed is in use, which was your original
contention, you'd need to give me anecdotal evidence of _everyone_
who has ever installed it, which is significantly more than 100
people.  In order to prove that false, it takes only a signle
counterexample.


>>>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??????????????????? 

      Yes.  One is relevant, and one is not.  Your 100 statements
won't get you any closer to proving your case.


					-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