Linked by Neeraj Singh on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 19:02 UTC
Windows If you shout something loud enough and many people are saying it, does it become true? Some groups of people (include tech journalists and Linux advocates, such as Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols) have a psychological need to find Vista lacking. Mr. V-N has predicted that Vista will have all manner of problems, so his clear interest is to point out everything that is wrong with the OS. Who cares if he has to even make some stuff up?
Permalink for comment 233329
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Logic, anyone?
by Snifflez on Tue 24th Apr 2007 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Logic, anyone?"
Snifflez
Member since:
2005-11-15

A. It's too early to evaluate whether Vista is "successful" from a market perspective.


Well, since you seem to be well acquainted with PlatformAgnostic's way of thinking, maybe you could explain to me why this simple explanation for refusal to consider a substantial portion of data presented by SJVN was simply omitted. Refusal to examine a portion of evidence without any substantial justification doesn't particularly increase the examiner's own credibility.

B. Whether or not Vista is "successful" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Vista is a useful operating system.


Whether or not Vista is "useful" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Vista is a financially successful operating system. Microsoft had invested a lot of time and money into creating Vista. ROI != usefulness. Also, let's not forget the main point of SJVN's argument: since Vista will be a financial failure, Microsoft should just open-source it. Now, personally, I think it's a seriously flawed idea. However, I also happen to think that PlatformAgnostic's "rebuttal" is equally flawed.

No, bad leap in logic. He's simply saying that he's not willing to accept SJVN's other articles as "proof" for one of SJVN's current points, based on his lack of credibility.


Yes, the very same credibility his argument sets out to dispute. That's circular logic. You cannot cite your conclusion as one of your premisses. No amount of semantic wiggling can change that.

Reply Parent Score: 3