To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
One of the major points of SJVN's article is that Vista isn't very successful. You on the other hand, would like to prove that SJVN isn't being objective. And you're doing so by simply ignoring his data? What's wrong with you???
A. It's too early to evaluate whether Vista is "successful" from a market perspective.
B. Whether or not Vista is "successful" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Vista is a useful operating system.
Wait, so you're trying to prove that SJVN isn't objective using his (alleged) lack of objectivity as one of your premisses? That's a logical fallacy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was attempting to dispute SJVN's sources, since I don't particularly trust his assertions and wanted to see the data behind them. I'm a student, and I wrote this article to take a break from one of my most stressful weeks ever. I'm not paid to do this, so I'm not going to spend my time chasing down every reference in SJVN's web.
I just wanted to point out that there was a bit of a ZDNet echo chamber. SJVN echoing himself is not that interesting to me. If you have a point to make about any SJVN fact I missed, please post it here so that it may be discussed. I'd like to keep the scope technical, though... I won't respond to points about marketshare or licensing practices. DRM is fair game, but only the technical aspects of it.
I don't object to your examination of facts presented by SJVN. I am merely pointing out the fact one of your premisses and the conclusion you're trying to reach, are the same, which constitutes a logical fallacy. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Now, this has nothing to do with whether SJVN is being objective or not (personally, I think he and objectivity weren't exactly introduced to one another). I don't have a problem with your premisses or your conclusion. It's your logic I have a bone to pick with; it's simply flawed.





Member since:
2005-11-15
OK, I've never thought that I would be defending SJVN, but the author of this article is being even more illogical than SJVN.
One of the major points of SJVN's article is that Vista isn't very successful. You on the other hand, would like to prove that SJVN isn't being objective. And you're doing so by simply ignoring his data? What's wrong with you???
Wait, so you're trying to prove that SJVN isn't objective using his (alleged) lack of objectivity as one of your premisses? That's a logical fallacy.
Edited 2007-04-23 21:25