🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40rvu2$erb@news1.deltanet.com>,  <xenon@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>rampson@ave050.ve.ford.com (Chris"Big-Kahuna"Rampson) wrote:
>
>>I am of the opinion that the smaller the OS, the easier it is to understand.
>>This makes Linux "harder" to understand. 
>
>I've preserved your comments at the cost of bandwidth because it is a
>good post. In answer to it: You are correct. 

Given that:
  1)  Linux is smaller than OS/2, 
  2)  OS/2 is easier to understand than Linux,
  3)  A smaller OS is easier to understand,
A contradiction arises.  
At least one of these statements must be false.

  Testing (1) - the sizes of OS/2 and Linux are easily and reliably
verifiable.  OS/2 consists of more code and more data than Linux, 
*if* you discount the quantity of Linux which is source code, which
I believe is reasonable.  (If you don't agree, then go ahead and 
abort reading this message and never mind.)

  Testing (2) - Since both of you proceeded from the assumption 
that Linux is difficult to understand, and one of you explicitly
compared Linux to OS/2 and declared OS/2 easier to understand, we
can agree to the validity of posit (2).  (If you change your minds,
this posit will need to be re-evaluated using a stronger argument.)

  Testing (3) - Aside from a pleasant intuitive feeling about it,
I don't see how to demonstrate the correctness of this posit.

  Given that (1) and (2) have been verified, and at least one 
of (1), (2), and (3) are false, I would conclude that (3) is
false.

  Excuse me if my approach to this post has been a little pedantic;
I'm taking a break from a rather intricate software problem, and my 
head's still down in it..

  A disclaimer:  I use and like Linux *and* OS/2, so an interpretation
of my conclusion as having been unduly influenced by personal bias would
be in error.  Nor am I especially enamoured of large OS's.  I believe 
that smaller is better, but not for the reasons stated by these other
two fellows..
-- 
Bill Moyer <ttk@rahul.net>