Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14063 comp.windows.misc:310
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!chekmate
From: chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool...( Hum Interface)
Message-ID: <3834@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 17 Mar 88 04:14:57 GMT
References: <3255@zeus.TEK.COM> <3760@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3268@zeus.TEK.COM>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 86

In article <3268@zeus.TEK.COM> bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed) writes:
>
>    Definitions can only be used by consensus.
>
>This is the crux of the issue.  In your narrowed view of multitasking, IPC
>requirements may exclude such systems as Multifinder.  Yet, Multifinder fits
>broader views of multitasking which rely only on the ability to share
>resources among a set of simultaneously executing processes.  
>-- 
>Robert Reed, Tektronix CAE Systems Division, bobr@zeus.TEK

Again, I don't want to discuss my definition of multitasking, this is
too much like angels on a pin.  I said "Your definition of NPM is not
multitasking according to my definition," and you replied "Here is
another system that is multitasking that doesn't satisfy your
definition."

But this is not a discussion, this is a failure to agree on terms.  I
have been very careful in defining what I mean when I say
"multitasking;" you and David W. Berry have not made explicit
statements but you are obviously using a different definition.

Therefore I cannot use the term "multitasking" and expect you to
understand what I mean.  So from now on I will not use the term
"multitasking."

Similarly, since I do not accept your definition of "multitasking,"
you cannot expect me to understand your use of the term.  In
particular, please stop saying "MultiFinder is multitasking," because
this statement doesn't tell me anything.

Let me restate my argument without using, um, that word.

I list here three properties that an OS may or may not have:
	(1) Tasks can run independently.
	(2) Tasks can communicate with each other.
	(3) Tasks can interrupt each other.
If an OS has all three of these properties, we shall say that it is P
(P for property).  In particular, we shall refer to the individual
properties as p1, p2, and p3, respectively.

First, I claim an OS that is P has many significant advantages over
one that is not P.  p1 makes an OS better for a human being; he can
switch his attention between tasks without having to wait for any
particular task to complete.  p2 makes an OS better for a programmer;
he can take full advantage of techniques like modularity and
object-oriented programming, writing less redundant code and more
flexible programs.  p3 insures no task will "run away with the
system."

I hope we do not need to discuss this claim.

Second, I claim that the Mac with MultiFinder is not P.  It does not
have p1. because of the need for Wait.  I do not know if it has p2.
It does not have p3, because the current task is perfectly capable of
never relinquishing control.

Therefore, an OS that is P has many significant advantages over the
Mac with MultiFinder.

I also claim that an OS that is not P does not automatically gain any
significant advantage _by_not_being_P.

Therefore, the Mac with MultiFinder does not automatically have any
advantage over an OS that is P.  The Mac with Multifinder runs Mac
software (mostly) but there is no reason our hypothetical OS cannot
run Mac software either.

Therefore, given a choice between an OS that is P and a Mac with
MultiFinder, I will prefer the OS that is P.  In fact, given my
personal situation, I won't even require the OS that is P to run Mac
software.  Your mileage may vary.

In followups, if you need some way to refer to your definition of, uh,
you know, may I suggest the term NPM.  Since this term is not in the
OED, may I also suggest you define it (or whatever term you settle on)
before you use it.

Adam

"Comp.windows.misc???  What the hell am I doing in comp.windows.misc?
Last thing I remember, I was reading rec.humor . . ."