What is portable?

[carbonize]

Strange heading I know but it's in regards to a comment some idiot made on my blog trying to sound clever.

Ehm, I don’t think you undestand the term “portable”. This program runs only on Windows, and therefore is not portable.

carbonize.co.uk/wp/2011/05/14/play-mkv-on-xbox-360/comment-page-1/#comment-8692

I wont say what I think of the person as I'm sure it would breach some rules of this forum.

[guinness]

He clearly didn't read that Wiki link he referenced...I would point him to this section >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_portability#Similar_systems !!

[joby_toss]

What I've learned here on TPFC over the years is that "portable" is a relative term. Our accepted definition might be endorsed by 80-90% of the users, but not by all.

In this particular case, I'm sure that a Windows application's portability should not be judged by the ability to run on Linux. It's absurd!

[m^(2)]

The problem is that some Wintel people hijacked a well defined term and started to use it in a very different context.
The word 'portable' is widely recognised in the *nix community and is synonymous to cross-platform. On Windows it got the same meaning, but very few Wintel people cared and actually used it, I guess that's why the hijacking succeeded.

Also, USB-portable software is severely underdeveloped on *nix and barely known.

So no, this was not an idiot trying to act smart, it's just that the person came from a different background and was annoyed by the use of the word that that person considered totally incorrect.

[carbonize]

As guiness pointed out the source material the guy linked to even says that portable is also used to define software that can be used between different machines running the same OS.

[webfork]

in regards to a comment some idiot made on my blog trying to sound clever.

I know I saw a thread awhile back from a few years ago that already covered much of this issue, but I couldn't find it ... anyway, I like what m^(2) wrote:

The problem is that some Wintel people hijacked a well defined term and started to use it in a very different context.
The word 'portable' is widely recognised in the *nix community and is synonymous to cross-platform. On Windows it got the same meaning, but very few Wintel people cared and actually used it, I guess that's why the hijacking succeeded.

First, is there a better word that "portable" to describe self-contained, localized settings, no-install software? This isn't a redundant question, I'm really asking.

Second, its always odd to see folks complain about the malleability of phrases and "standard, accepted" usage. English is a messy, unstandardized language with bits from every other language (contrasted against for example Spanish and written Chinese). That's not to say its anything goes, but on other forums, I frequently clarify with portable (USB) vs. portable (cross-platform). Additionally, I object to the idea that computers and their lexicon belong to developers since they've become so pervasive; the ratio of computer users to developers is probably at this point 1,000:1.

Anyway, m^(2) basically nailed it with the paragraph:

So no, this was not an idiot trying to act smart, it's just that the person came from a different background and was annoyed by the use of the word that that person considered totally incorrect.

Precisely.

Also, USB-portable software is severely underdeveloped on *nix and barely known.

I've seen some efforts, but there isn't yet much demand. Right and there aren't many Linux public terminals, and many of those don't give guests executable privileges to their machines.

[m^(2)]

The problem is that some Wintel people hijacked a well defined term and started to use it in a very different context.
The word 'portable' is widely recognised in the *nix community and is synonymous to cross-platform. On Windows it got the same meaning, but very few Wintel people cared and actually used it, I guess that's why the hijacking succeeded.

First, is there a better word that "portable" to describe self-contained, localized settings, no-install software? This isn't a redundant question, I'm really asking.

In the wintel world, the meaning of 'portable' changed already and I think that the best thing that one can do is to accept it, so I think that the question is purely academic (which is OK). And I accept it myself, though I find the hijack somewhat, well, ugly.
IMHO, you gave the best word, self-contained. I think that it's better than portable because moving such software around is not the only use. I used it exclusively for a several of years for the sole purpose of decoupling programs from the underlying OS in order to be able to switch (i.e. reinstall) the latter w/out affecting the former. I haven't used it on portable devices for hmm...4 years? 5?

Second, its always odd to see folks complain about the malleability of phrases and "standard, accepted" usage. English is a messy, unstandardized language with bits from every other language (contrasted against for example Spanish and written Chinese). That's not to say its anything goes, but on other forums, I frequently clarify with portable (USB) vs. portable (cross-platform). Additionally, I object to the idea that computers and their lexicon belong to developers since they've become so pervasive; the ratio of computer users to developers is probably at this point 1,000:1.

Now there's a question: do users create and popularise their phases for computer terms? I can't think of a single case where I would *know* or *expect* that it happened. Only ones (like 'portable'=self-contained) where I have no idea and it could be either just as well.

I've seen some efforts, but there isn't yet much demand. Right and there aren't many Linux public terminals, and many of those don't give guests executable privileges to their machines.

Yeah. Just as you can very rarely use your software to help a friend (because the friend is very likely to have Windows), you can very rarely use it at school or at workplace (for the same reason). And there's notably less need for it in my use case - because almost all settings that are not directly system related are stored in the home directory and easy to back up and restore after reinstall.

[webfork]

Now there's a question: do users create and popularise their phases for computer terms?

I think so. Its flexible there because there are no truly original words and what you choose to describe the unknown will depend on where you're from. In this case, "portable" would come from non-computer people to represent something you can pick up and take with you. Another example would be "desktop" and "mouse", which are very non-techy words borrowed by developers and users alike because they resemble their real world counterparts.

[JohnTHaller]

The problem is that some Wintel people hijacked a well defined term and started to use it in a very different context.
The word 'portable' is widely recognised in the *nix community and is synonymous to cross-platform. On Windows it got the same meaning, but very few Wintel people cared and actually used it, I guess that's why the hijacking succeeded.

Yeah, that would be my fault going back to my first release of "Portable Firefox 0.9+" back in 2004 and popularizing the concept of portable apps. Portable is much more widely known in this context now (USB) rather than the previous one (cross platform). I suppose I should have selected a different modifier term at the time, but I did not know about the term portable in relation to cross-platform at the time and portable made the most sense (as opposed to mobile which implied connection to mobile phones).

Anyway, it's too late for me to change it now. So, my bad.

[Andrew Lee]

AFAIK, "cross-platform" has always been the term used to describe apps that run on multiple platforms.

"Portable" is only used in the realm of source code, as in "source portability", which refers to the ability to compile the same source package on different platforms.

At no time do I recall the term "portable" being used to describe "cross-platform" software, only source code portability. Unless someone can prove me wrong...

The use of the word "portable" for apps was used by myself and others a few years back to describe applications that variously are not tied to a particular machine/registry and can be conveniently moved about and executed on different machines.

As such, I don't think it is fair to say "Wintel people hijacked a well defined term", because the term "portable" was never used to define binary executables (i.e. apps).

[GeddichNixan]

In my opinion it is pointless to discuss whether wintel people did hijack the term or not. A language behaves like a living creature. It changes over time, it adapts new terms for new phenomena and discards terms which have become usless over time. It may also change the meaning of terms.

As I do not know anything about the "*nix world" and its linguistic habits, I can not tell whether the term "portable" really was used in the sense of "cross-plattform". Fact is for me at the moment, that the two terms "portable" and "cross-platform" are clearly describing two different things. It is of course up to each one's own judgement to follow (or not) the new use of the terms, but sooner or later "linguistic conservatives" (who want to stick to old meanings) will loose the common base for communication. "Tempora mutantur..." as the ancient Romans used to say.

[m^(2)]

The problem is that some Wintel people hijacked a well defined term and started to use it in a very different context.
The word 'portable' is widely recognised in the *nix community and is synonymous to cross-platform. On Windows it got the same meaning, but very few Wintel people cared and actually used it, I guess that's why the hijacking succeeded.

Yeah, that would be my fault going back to my first release of "Portable Firefox 0.9+" back in 2004 and popularizing the concept of portable apps. Portable is much more widely known in this context now (USB) rather than the previous one (cross platform). I suppose I should have selected a different modifier term at the time, but I did not know about the term portable in relation to cross-platform at the time and portable made the most sense (as opposed to mobile which implied connection to mobile phones).

Anyway, it's too late for me to change it now. So, my bad.

I thought it was you.
So, a developer.

AFAIK, "cross-platform" has always been the term used to describe apps that run on multiple platforms.

"Portable" is only used in the realm of source code, as in "source portability", which refers to the ability to compile the same source package on different platforms.

At no time do I recall the term "portable" being used to describe "cross-platform" software, only source code portability. Unless someone can prove me wrong...

I'm not sure what do you mean by 'cross-platform'. Normally, it's about source code portability. Anyway, if you mean binary compatibility, then Java fits it. Its goals, defined in 1999 contain:

1.2.3 Architecture Neutral and Portable

As such, I don't think it is fair to say "Wintel people hijacked a well defined term", because the term "portable" was never used to define binary executables (i.e. apps).

Normally, when people talk about computer programs, they don't mean particular binaries or even binaries compiled from particular sources but rather projects. In this context there is a clash between both meanings.