Nice, but wouldn't autarkic be nearer the mark?Kranor wrote:Axenic
Stealth vs. Clean
Well.......Not really.
Autarkic =
'A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid.'
Self-sufficiency is not really correct because the software still relies on the OS to run. And may well 'Import' DLL's and other files that it needs.
Besides I think mine sounds Cooler. Still I think that both of us should get Extra points for the most Interesting and Wildly unusable terms.......Well done to the pair of us.
Autarkic =
'A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid.'
Self-sufficiency is not really correct because the software still relies on the OS to run. And may well 'Import' DLL's and other files that it needs.
Besides I think mine sounds Cooler. Still I think that both of us should get Extra points for the most Interesting and Wildly unusable terms.......Well done to the pair of us.
I like that, although "self contained" may be even better."self enclosed"
Unfortunately, most new visitors probably don't know what stealth means in the context of TPFC apps. I remember I had to root around the site to find the definition. OTOH, I would bet most people would guess the correct meaning of "self contained" on the first try."stealth" would be good enough for me too as we have been using it at TPFC for such a long time
Regardless of what term is used, a link to the definition would be useful.
-
GeddichNixan
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am
Autarkic in the sense of nonreliance on the outside is in our context synonymous with "portable" as a portable app doesn't have to be "embedded" in a particular system by installation but can be transferred to another system. Of course every application has outside dependencies at least the OS as environment. What we are looking for is a better and less misleading expression for the non-affecting-behavior of a portable app. Nevertheless I think "autarkic" goes into the right direction.
As to "axenic", I like the idea. Not so much as far as the meaning of "axenic" (i.e. non contaminated by other organisms) is concerned because it turns things upside down. Not the "non-contaminated status" of the app is meant by stealth but it's behavior "not to contaminate" the system. (BTW, what about "pro-axenic" or "reciprocal axenic" - just to add two to the cool sounding but unsusable terms. )
What I like is the idea of picking a term from biology, one which is not used in the everyday language. IMO - and theoretically of course - it would have the following advantages:
- as most newbies wouldn't know what it means they had to look at the definition first
- there wouldn't be any problems of the kind of "stealth = secret, non-traceable, incognito", because we could create our definition without having to struggle with the different meaning of a word from the standard language
So, Kranor, if you have any cool sounding expression from biology describing an organism which doesn't affect it's environment (I could hardly imagine there are such organisms, but who knows), please share it with us.
I think --,--'s "self enclosed" and Jarte Guy's "self contained" are equally good ones.
BTW, Jarte Guy made a good point. As I remember I didn't know either what "stealth" meant as I first visited TPFC and had to look up the definition. I don't know how many of us started with looking up the definition but probably the solution of our discussion is simply put the definitions for the terms we use to describe portable apps to a prominent place, so every newbie could start with reading them and that way there would be less room for misunderstandings.
As to "axenic", I like the idea. Not so much as far as the meaning of "axenic" (i.e. non contaminated by other organisms) is concerned because it turns things upside down. Not the "non-contaminated status" of the app is meant by stealth but it's behavior "not to contaminate" the system. (BTW, what about "pro-axenic" or "reciprocal axenic" - just to add two to the cool sounding but unsusable terms.
)What I like is the idea of picking a term from biology, one which is not used in the everyday language. IMO - and theoretically of course - it would have the following advantages:
- as most newbies wouldn't know what it means they had to look at the definition first
- there wouldn't be any problems of the kind of "stealth = secret, non-traceable, incognito", because we could create our definition without having to struggle with the different meaning of a word from the standard language
So, Kranor, if you have any cool sounding expression from biology describing an organism which doesn't affect it's environment (I could hardly imagine there are such organisms, but who knows), please share it with us.
I think --,--'s "self enclosed" and Jarte Guy's "self contained" are equally good ones.
BTW, Jarte Guy made a good point. As I remember I didn't know either what "stealth" meant as I first visited TPFC and had to look up the definition. I don't know how many of us started with looking up the definition but probably the solution of our discussion is simply put the definitions for the terms we use to describe portable apps to a prominent place, so every newbie could start with reading them and that way there would be less room for misunderstandings.
Here yah go
Commensalism
'Commensalism describes a relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped. It is derived from the English word commensal, meaning the sharing of food, and used of human social interaction. The word derives from the Latin com mensa, meaning sharing a table.[21][22]
Commensal relationships may involve an organism using another for transportation (phoresy), for housing (inquilinism), or it may also involve an organism using something another created, after the death of the first (metabiosis). An example is the hermit crabs that use gastropod shells to protect their bodies. Further examples include spiders building their webs on trees.'
Commensalism
'Commensalism describes a relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped. It is derived from the English word commensal, meaning the sharing of food, and used of human social interaction. The word derives from the Latin com mensa, meaning sharing a table.[21][22]
Commensal relationships may involve an organism using another for transportation (phoresy), for housing (inquilinism), or it may also involve an organism using something another created, after the death of the first (metabiosis). An example is the hermit crabs that use gastropod shells to protect their bodies. Further examples include spiders building their webs on trees.'
-
fpelletier
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:33 am
- Location: Philadelphia area
Kranor is right; this thread has lost the original drive. It is now only an apparently fun competition to find an unusable word that although it may fit better, will be innately understood by fewer whom visit the site than the incumbent term, "Stealth". Which by the way, still isn't a half bad word to use. My hat is off to the author of the site because it is difficult to create any issue or topic that has garnered the interest and controversy that this single word has--probably created off-the-cuff.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a small multi-faceted rating system with a simple string of indices or flags that would quickly tell the visitor exactly how "stealthy" the software is...with a link to a legend that explains the indexing system. That is, one index for each facet of what it takes to make a product "stealthy.”
In that way, no one would ever need to leave the site again, looking for the bastardized meaning for whatever shoehorned word we mangle into service for this site. In addition, everyone's expectations would immediately be accurately set for each product--without confusion.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a small multi-faceted rating system with a simple string of indices or flags that would quickly tell the visitor exactly how "stealthy" the software is...with a link to a legend that explains the indexing system. That is, one index for each facet of what it takes to make a product "stealthy.”
In that way, no one would ever need to leave the site again, looking for the bastardized meaning for whatever shoehorned word we mangle into service for this site. In addition, everyone's expectations would immediately be accurately set for each product--without confusion.
'Green'! Wish I'd thought of it myself...Kranor wrote:How many script kiddies does it take to change a light bulb?
http://www.nebulasoft.cn/index_en.html
-
GeddichNixan
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am
I have to disagree with fpelletier. I don't think, this discussion simply became a competition to find an unusable word. Although some proposals are indeed far from being suitable for our purposes, we are still discussing our initial problem and those "funny" proposals just illustrate different aspects of the problem.
On the other hand there is a point made by fpelletier with which I competely agree. Whatever expression we may chose at the end, it is not so much the word itself what makes it suitable per se but the definition we give to it as I alrady stated in one of my previous postings. Therefore the only thing what really matters is how we present our definition to the visitors of TPFC. A rating system (which is a good idea) would only be a secondary aspect of this. More important is that we present the definition of "stealth" (and this word is not that bad at all, but many other would be OK too) so that everybody who needs to read it comes to it more or less automatically. For example:
- This could be a header of the homepage with the definition, i.e. what "stealth" means and what it doesn't.
- The first app on the first site could include a definition of "stealth", so every new visitior could find it "at first sight".
- Another good solution would be if there were a small explanation window popping up, whenever one hovers with the mouse over the word "stealth" in the database.
BTW, words from the "everyday" language have the disadvantage that they may have connotations against which they have to be marked off if used in our context. Terms from another science field would have a narrover definition (as all scientific terms have this tendency), so less connotations, but in the majority of the cases, most users won't understand them at once not even in a wrong sense.
All in all, what solves this problem is the presentation of a correct definition so that those who need it don't have to search endlessly for it. IMHO the problem is not so much a linguistic one but rather a question of ergonomy.
On the other hand there is a point made by fpelletier with which I competely agree. Whatever expression we may chose at the end, it is not so much the word itself what makes it suitable per se but the definition we give to it as I alrady stated in one of my previous postings. Therefore the only thing what really matters is how we present our definition to the visitors of TPFC. A rating system (which is a good idea) would only be a secondary aspect of this. More important is that we present the definition of "stealth" (and this word is not that bad at all, but many other would be OK too) so that everybody who needs to read it comes to it more or less automatically. For example:
- This could be a header of the homepage with the definition, i.e. what "stealth" means and what it doesn't.
- The first app on the first site could include a definition of "stealth", so every new visitior could find it "at first sight".
- Another good solution would be if there were a small explanation window popping up, whenever one hovers with the mouse over the word "stealth" in the database.
BTW, words from the "everyday" language have the disadvantage that they may have connotations against which they have to be marked off if used in our context. Terms from another science field would have a narrover definition (as all scientific terms have this tendency), so less connotations, but in the majority of the cases, most users won't understand them at once not even in a wrong sense.
All in all, what solves this problem is the presentation of a correct definition so that those who need it don't have to search endlessly for it. IMHO the problem is not so much a linguistic one but rather a question of ergonomy.
