4 ms·

>It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never

by mthoms 5y ago

>It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never said hardware itself mattered, I said the level of software engineering in seamlessly transitioning MacOS across different architectures was impressive and resource consuming. Rosetta (executed flawlessly twice) in particular is an incredible feat. As were Time Machine (effortless backups), full disk encryption (seamless and transparent) at the time they were released. Not world changing, sure - but what OS feature in the past 20 years is? >Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? You've moved the goal posts. The comment I replied to was: >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Anyways, I'm no Mac fanboy so it feels weird trying to hype MacOS up. My only point was that the above statement comes across as more than a little hyperbolic. I'm not entirely sure how to counter your argument since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. You've only said it hasn't changed enough. That's a bit vague. What OS meets your criteria? What obvious feature is MacOS lacking? What's your gold-standard benchmark for what an OS should be? To be clear, I agree with you that many (most) MacOS changes are marketing-driven fluff. But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs.

Maursault 5y ago
Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. In fact, you did list migrating platforms to support macOS versioning, which can be interpreted as saying the hardware matters enough to advance versioning. Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," especially because no goal was met. > since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. This is actually a good example of moving goal posts, because it is beyond the scope of supporting the argument. It is perfectly ordinary that something be proved as less than ideal without providing what a perfect or better ideal is. > But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs. This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features doesn't make one OS distinct from it's previous incarnation, but they are instead, at best, incremental point increases of the same operating system (which is actually what Apple does, 10.5, 10.6, etc.). I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was arguing anything beyond that, arguing anything beyond decrying the Adobe-style marketing strategy of labelling the same software as though it were new and innovative. With Mac OS X, OS X and macOS, the kernel hardly changes and the user land barely changes if at all, and even the window manager barely changes. What mostly changes is a few GUI features deprecate while adding a list of new GUI features; what changes between macOS versions is superficial and incremental. And it is merely my opinion, not a claim of some fundamental truth. So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much.
- mthoms 5y ago
  >Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. Well, I didn't ignore the argument, nor did I attack you personally (your tone is not your personality, is it?). So you're misusing "ad hominem". Second, on a human level, I pointed out that your argument came across as curt and unnecessarily argumentative. You can choose to do with that feedback what you will. As in "hey, sorry, I didn't intend it like that" or "NAH-Nah you committed a technical foul therefore I win the argument!". It's your choice, but when people make observations about how you're coming across - it might be wise to assume they mean that genuinely. >Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," You're plainly wrong. Further apart or narrower doesn't matter - what matters is you changed the scope of your argument to make it easier to support. Your original comment covered 2001-2021, you then casually changed it to 2012-2021 without explicitly acknowledging you were changing the argument. That is textbook goal post moving. Textbook. The rest of the argument is simple - you're saying MacOS hasn't changed enough. I'm saying - relative to its peers it has changed about the same amount. If you can tell me some great advancements that other OS's have had during the same time frame that MacOS lacks that would go a long way to supporting your argument. I'm actually curious on this (since for example - I don't follow Windows too closely). Similarly, I can say Samsung (or whatever) TV's haven't advanced that much in the past 20 years. But if I can't point out a single feature or advancement they are lacking compared with their peers then it's not really a strong argument. It just sounds like I'm angry with Samsung for some reason. >This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features You're incredible. Actually screaming "straw man" in the same sentence you're saying Apple (or literally anybody) calls its point releases "a new operating system". Amazing. You're now 0 for 2 in use of the term "fallacy". >So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much. I'm fine. As previously mentioned, you're the one who sounds angry.

by mthoms 5y ago

Maursault 5y ago

Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. In fact, you did list migrating platforms to support macOS versioning, which can be interpreted as saying the hardware matters enough to advance versioning. Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," especially because no goal was met. > since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. This is actually a good example of moving goal posts, because it is beyond the scope of supporting the argument. It is perfectly ordinary that something be proved as less than ideal without providing what a perfect or better ideal is. > But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs. This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features doesn't make one OS distinct from it's previous incarnation, but they are instead, at best, incremental point increases of the same operating system (which is actually what Apple does, 10.5, 10.6, etc.). I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was arguing anything beyond that, arguing anything beyond decrying the Adobe-style marketing strategy of labelling the same software as though it were new and innovative. With Mac OS X, OS X and macOS, the kernel hardly changes and the user land barely changes if at all, and even the window manager barely changes. What mostly changes is a few GUI features deprecate while adding a list of new GUI features; what changes between macOS versions is superficial and incremental. And it is merely my opinion, not a claim of some fundamental truth. So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much.

mthoms 5y ago
>Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. Well, I didn't ignore the argument, nor did I attack you personally (your tone is not your personality, is it?). So you're misusing "ad hominem". Second, on a human level, I pointed out that your argument came across as curt and unnecessarily argumentative. You can choose to do with that feedback what you will. As in "hey, sorry, I didn't intend it like that" or "NAH-Nah you committed a technical foul therefore I win the argument!". It's your choice, but when people make observations about how you're coming across - it might be wise to assume they mean that genuinely. >Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," You're plainly wrong. Further apart or narrower doesn't matter - what matters is you changed the scope of your argument to make it easier to support. Your original comment covered 2001-2021, you then casually changed it to 2012-2021 without explicitly acknowledging you were changing the argument. That is textbook goal post moving. Textbook. The rest of the argument is simple - you're saying MacOS hasn't changed enough. I'm saying - relative to its peers it has changed about the same amount. If you can tell me some great advancements that other OS's have had during the same time frame that MacOS lacks that would go a long way to supporting your argument. I'm actually curious on this (since for example - I don't follow Windows too closely). Similarly, I can say Samsung (or whatever) TV's haven't advanced that much in the past 20 years. But if I can't point out a single feature or advancement they are lacking compared with their peers then it's not really a strong argument. It just sounds like I'm angry with Samsung for some reason. >This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features You're incredible. Actually screaming "straw man" in the same sentence you're saying Apple (or literally anybody) calls its point releases "a new operating system". Amazing. You're now 0 for 2 in use of the term "fallacy". >So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much. I'm fine. As previously mentioned, you're the one who sounds angry.