most pointless computer software

[DoorNumber1]

Now, you are saying that anything that does not run by itself, but is interpreted to do something, is not software. So then you could say that Java programs are not software, since they need the Java Virtual Machine to run them. Therefore any java program is not software. Right?

I already made that very logical argument. He promptly ignored it. And yes Sayonara, I think I'll fire away.

 

Everything is interpreted. Period. Your computer can do nothing more than what is hard coded. You lay out this thing called an ALU and a registry (depending on your design) and a couple of other essentials and you hard code it with a primitive language called assembler. Your entire computer is nothing more than a translational unit that takes voltages on wires, interprets them as 0's and 1's, and picks from a set of hardcoded functions and performs them in some specified order (given by the program you feed it). Everything else is supplementary. Nothing else matters.

 

A string of 0's and 1's that can be successfully interpreted by your machine as assembler is the heart of every piece of software. But this is not the definitino of software. Software includes code that goes through an intermediate step to get to the assembler (which is why, as a million non technical sites have said, anything except hardware is software). Like the java virtual machine. So JVM + .class file = software because the two of these together do, in fact, produce something that runs in assembler which is determined primarily by the the .class file used as input. Is a .class file by itself software? Eh... I'll call it potential software. Feed a .class file to lots of things and it'll do nothing. Feed it to the JVM and ouila! You have a runnable program and, thus, software. So (JVM + *.class) as a package = software.

 

A virus is no different. It's a script to be interpreted at some level of abstraction. Hell, it doesn't even have to be. In a less secure system I'm sure you could write a virus in as low level a language as you want. People don't have to though. It's the fact that it does harm that classifies it as a virus, not the language it's written in. Is that snippet of php code software? Could be. Wrap it with a php enabled app server like any decent apache installation and it sure as hell is. It's just abstracted by a step.

 

Oh, and I apologize. I missed the post in which you wanted me to draw a distinction between software taking in an input file and viral instructions being picked up by a program. I must have been making a post myself... but I'll happily challenge your analogy, albeit a good one though.

 

Is a .jpeg software? I'm sure that there is some set of circumstances in which you can write an interpreter that takes a .jpeg and successfully maps it to assembler. The requirement to me is that the program that picks it up is merely an interpreter; the heart of the logic must be in the input file fed into it. I'll explain why I have that requirement if it's really necessary... just ask. So a virus fed into a program (say, a web browser) that exists solely to interpret information coming into it and controls, for however long, the logic of what your machine is doing (again, there's a mapping between viral code and the logic the machine's performing that is missing in most simple text or image file inputs) is software. The layer of indirection doesn't invalidate it. So a malicious script + interpreter = virus = software. COULD a jpeg + a suitable interpreter be a virus/software? Maybe, but I tire of this conversation.

 

You've said one thing that is quite correct... this is outside of the scope of the original question. Hell, I wouldn't have even posted if not for the fact that I saw an obvious logical flaw being made and defended for many posts (who committed the "classical mistake" here?) in my field of study. It's only 8:35 here in Cambridge, MA, but this is exhausting. I need to spend a night drinking to make up for this. I quit.

 

And, for the record, I agree with YT2095's earlier post. The most pointless piece of software ever written was Windows, by far! Not that it was pointless when originally conceived, but it certainly is today. Now where's my alcohol...

[Sayonara]

If you want to troll, go ahead.

I'm leaving too.

I don't really think I have been trolling, although if I was you deserve it for your block-headedness. Pasting random quotes and links and then demanding the same is not a cohesive argument.

 

 

But first, can you tell Mr. Pogos why you suspended him? He's clueless.

mailto:yourdadonapogostick@gmail.com

I haven't suspended him. It was probably either Blike or YT.

When he told you he was clueless you should have laughed in his face (well, you know, insofar as you can do on the net).

 

 

 

A string of 0's and 1's that can be successfully interpreted by your machine as assembler is the heart of every piece of software. But this is not the definitino of software. Software includes code that goes through an intermediate step to get to the assembler (which is why, as a million non technical sites have said, anything except hardware is software). Like the java virtual machine. So JVM + .class file = software because the two of these together do, in fact, produce something that runs in assembler which is determined primarily by the the .class file used as input. Is a .class file by itself software? Eh... I'll call it potential software. Feed a .class file to lots of things and it'll do nothing. Feed it to the JVM and ouila! You have a runnable program and, thus, software. So (JVM + *.class) as a package = software.

This is exactly what I have been trying to highlight to Cap'n, albeit in a somewhat tired and ham-fisted way. Particularly the concept of "potential software" - I simply don't think calling everything software is particularly helpful given the original question that was asked, because if it were then we could reply with "a text file containing a non-breaking space", or anything equally trivial, which is clearly not what 5605 was asking for.

I agree redefining "software" is a bad plan, but that does not preclude us from applying arbitrary limits in this discussion.

 

 

You've said one thing that is quite correct... this is outside of the scope of the original question. Hell, I wouldn't have even posted if not for the fact that I saw an obvious logical flaw being made and defended for many posts (who committed the "classical mistake" here?) in my field of study. It's only 8:35 here in Cambridge, MA, but this is exhausting. I need to spend a night drinking to make up for this.

And fair play to you, but have not been trying to redefine anything here. I have simply been trying to place limits on what we need to consider as "software", given the original question. Really I suppose I should have just ignored the one-upmanship coming from Refsmmat. It would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't really think I have been trolling, although if I was you deserve it for your block-headedness. Pasting random quotes and links and then demanding the same is not[/b'] a cohesive argument.

Well, you contradicting yourself is not good either.

 

 

 

I haven't suspended him. It was probably either Blike or YT.

When he told you he was clueless you should have laughed in his face (well, you know, insofar as you can do on the net).

Funny... He said he got a PM from you right before he was suspended. Right before he read it, he was suspended. That's why he thought it was you.

 

 

And fair play to you, but have not been trying to redefine anything here. I have simply been trying to place limits on what we need to consider as "software", given the original question. Really I suppose I should have just ignored the one-upmanship coming from Refsmmat. It would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

Is calling anything software actually crucial to the discussion? Couldn't we have said "It's not software, but that doesn't matter."?

[Sayonara]

Funny... He said he got a PM from you right before he was suspended. Right before he read it, he was suspended. That's why he thought it was you.

Yes, he did get a PM from me. It was a reply to one he sent me, so it shouldn't have come as any great surprise.

 

 

Is calling anything software actually crucial to the discussion? Couldn't we have said "It's not software, but that doesn't matter."?

That's kind of what I am trying to determine.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, he did get a PM from me. It was a reply to one he sent me, so it shouldn't have come as any great surprise.

Hmm... wouldn't you tell someone before they are suspended? He doesn't know why, but I think it's the spam and stuff...

 

 

 

That's kind of what I am trying to determine.

Good, we agree on something.

 

BUT ANYWAYS, do you think IE is a pointless software?

 

Or maybe (if this counts, but I don't care if it does) the extension for Firefox that searches Bible sites automatically...

[Dave]

Maybe some people have differening opinions on what software is? To most people, software is just programs like Word or Messenger that are visible to them. I suppose it parallels the "Are biological viruses alive?" debate.

 

Just trying to help out, won't say a lot more on the topic

[5605]

what stated out as just me being curious has turned into an argument pkese cary on with rubbish my aim is to be my friens record of 130 replys

[5605]

not one

thanks