Talk:Software

GhostRiderX990 - Software definition

- Software is a general term for the various kinds of programs used to operate computers and related devices. (The term hardware describes the physical aspects of computers and related devices.) Software can be thought of as the variable part of a computer and hardware the invariable part. Software is often divided into application software (programs that do work users are directly interested in) and system software (which includes operating systems and any program that supports application software). The term middleware is sometimes used to describe programming that mediates between application and system software or between two different kinds of application software (for example, sending a remote work request from an application in a computer that has one kind of operating system to an application in a computer with a different operating system).

An additional and difficult-to-classify category of software is the utility, which is a small useful program with limited capability. Some utilities come with operating systems. Like applications, utilities tend to be separately installable and capable of being used independently from the rest of the operating system. By; Michael D-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.19 (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge this article into Software. They are the same stuff.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Look like it was done around January 27, 2009.

Has the merge been undone? I don't understand why the article is called 'computer software' Can there be any other kind of software important enough to require the word 'computer' added to 'software' in the title? It seems nonsense to me. If no one oposes in a reasonable time, I will transfer this article to software, and redirect 'computer software' to software. --Jasón (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasón, since software is currently a redirect to this article, this will be a move. But article software has a revision history, so you will need help from an administrator to do this move (including his talk page). I suggest to use the procedure for requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves to get first feedback from a broader audience. More info can be found in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 08:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A mild modification needed

Once a user searches for software, it redirects to computer software. But today, software pertains to computers as well as PDAs, Mobiles, Electronics, etc. Having the entire topic be based on just computer software is just not right. I had made a separate section for software for the very purpose hoping that would happen, but it was reverted. I propose that a separate page be created defining what a software is and the remaining be made as sub classifications. It would then be much more well organised as well as informative.

Well those things have computers in them too, so I do not see the distinction. It is the computer in the device that runs the software. We should mention consumer electronics as having more and more software though, and "Apps" as being the slang for application software. W Nowicki (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Software by country

I think such a category is needed and missing from Category:Software. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

History section

The history section is totally unsourced, redundant, and contains factual errors. Not sure if we should just remove it for now. W Nowicki (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view this section is very poor, specially if compared to the articles about the history of free and open-source software and the history of computing hardware. In logic terms, free and open-source software are a subset of software, and there should be a full article on software history which also included the history of free and open-source SW. Unfortunately I'm not an expert to carry out the task, but I'm sure there is enough expertise out there.--Jasón (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the history section seems totally wrong. It seems to claim that software was only available from OEMs until the advent of the PC. However, I believe games were available for the AppleII and similar, and programs like Unix and Emacs pre-date the IBM PC (just checked!) My prof says he used a package such as SPSS or something on the mainframes, and it was sold by the software vendor, not the OEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snydersware (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Bottomless Data Compression"

I have finished my program that will compress forever without error. "Bottomless Data Compression" or "Infinity to one" compression, so to speak. Who do I demonstrate this to so that I may be sourced here without loss of the intellectual property rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.163 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you first look at Lossless data compression, in particular the section on 'Limitations', which contains a claim (with reference) that such "infinity to one" compression is impossible. Murray Langton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been running this "program" for several weeks now and not one bit is off. It is not your typical data compressor. It is more a function of the mechanical distribution of random binary than typical software manipulation. Data does not equal mass. It will simply compress any form of binary data presented, including its own output. It will compress the most randomized binary possible even in its "native random state" not just patterned data output from typical computers. I've worked on it for over thirty years and this was my 283rd try, all the others did fail, eventually but not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.163 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The limitations described at your article specify "Lossless data compression algorithms cannot guarantee compression for all input data sets." This compressor, indeed may be presented certain types of data that it may not compress on the first pass but will on the second or third after the change of the compression function, inherent in the program occurs.

fa:نرم افزار کامپیوتر — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.40.230 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, compressing by a factor of infinity is easy. Just take all the data in and produce none in return (for example, crash). I have written some programs like that, as I suppose every early student in computer science. The hard part is getting the data back out! Does make a good joke, and might mention if there is a source. W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-Encyclopedic Phrase

The article reads:

"It is hard to imagine today that people once felt that software was worthless without a machine."

This may be true for some people -- but equally, it maybe be untrue for other people. In any case, the phrase "hard to imagine" is highly subjective and un-encyclopedic, and should be re-written or removed.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur it should be removed, although for the much simpler reason that it sounds puerile. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Software Management?

Why isn't "Software Management" even mentioned in this article? --Alien4 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Software Topics

Might I suggest a "Theory" subcategory under software topics? Software has now evolved to exist as a part of technology that is currently being studied in-depth by academics. Wendy Chun's "On Software, or the Persistence of Visual Knowledge" is one such example. She writes, "Software perpetuates certain notions of seeing as knowing, of reading and readaibility that were supposed to have faded with the waning of indexicality. It does so by mimicking both ideology and ideology critique, by conflating executable with execution, program with process, order with action." Another work of hers, "Invisibly Visible, Visibly Invisible", is also of note. Taylor Bohl (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)