Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 22:07 UTC
Linux With Linux on the desktop going from a slow crawl to verging on an explosion, many have toiled with the question: How do we make this happen faster? A well-known Austin-based Linux Advocate thinks he has the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 297473
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Self-agreement
by stestagg on Thu 24th Jan 2008 00:50 UTC in reply to "Self-agreement"
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

How is this circular logic?

Ken has come to a conclusion. One that the interviewer agrees with, along with most rational people in the world. Because the conclusion is largely subjective in nature, and it agrees with popular conception (and experience), it can legitimately be called correct.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Self-agreement
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2008 00:58 in reply to "RE: Self-agreement"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ken has come to the correct conclusion that the majority of people who use a computer haven't a clue that they have a choice in how it's operated.

Because the conclusion is largely subjective in nature [..] it can legitimately be called correct.

If a conclusion is largely subjective by nature then it actually means it's not possible to tell if it is right or wrong. OTOH if it was objective... Besides, there is nothing to back that claim up. As you said, it is very subjective and there are lots of opinions in both directions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Self-agreement
by stestagg on Thu 24th Jan 2008 13:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Self-agreement"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Actually, I was being quite precise there. I didn't use the words 'right' or 'wrong' but 'correct', and I even qualified that by adding the 'can legitimately be called' phrase before it.

Take subjective scoring in the Olympics for example. If someone performs well in an ice skating competition and are given a good score, then you can't claim the score was 'right' in a mathematical sense, but to say that the judges gave a correct score, is perfectly satisfactory.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Self-agreement
by BluenoseJake on Thu 24th Jan 2008 12:59 in reply to "RE: Self-agreement"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Ken has come to a conclusion. One that the interviewer agrees with, along with most rational people in the world."

I consider myself rational (haven't killed and eaten any of my friends today, or went on an unexplained crying jag) But i disagree, and I think you would find that the community opinion is probably split right down the middle with regards to OSS software on Prop OSs

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Self-agreement
by stestagg on Thu 24th Jan 2008 13:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Self-agreement"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

The conclusion that is being discussed is [paraphrased]:

Most people aren't aware that they don't have to use the OS that their computer was shipped with.

Now I don't see how community optinion can be split over this. For a start, most people are only vaguely aware of the concept of an OS. Most[?] people have heard of Linux nowadays, but the fact that it can freely replace Windows and [usually] provide a decent graphical interface and replace all their [non-technical] applications is not something that the majority of people are aware of, in any realistic definition of 'aware'.

Reply Parent Score: 2