Wikipedia

Talk:Software

Fair-use of software definition

[edit]

I made this edit to make the definition of software easy to understand. It was reverted with the explanation that it needed quotation marks b/c it is a sentence from a textbook. The use of a simple sentence in an educational environment is allowed under US copyright law under the Fair use doctrine. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that interpretation on Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware, if it's an exact quote more than a few words it needs to be attributed to the source—otherwise it's plagiarism, if it may not be entirely clear where copyright violation begins. (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you just change a couple words so that it's not a direct quote, we call that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you want to use the exact quote fine, but use quotation marks so it's clear that the words are from the source and not a Wikipedia editor. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in the lead

[edit]

The image of credit cards in the lead is extremely confusing. Yes, modern smart cards have software inside. So does any modern toaster or washing machine. Unless a better picture is found, I suggest removing this random picture altogether. Dimawik (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, this website has numerous programming language articles that have a suitable replacement. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

[edit]

Change short description from:

Non-tangible executable component of a computer

to...

Prepared set of instructions a computer can execute

Rationale:

“Non-tangible” is ridiculous and not informative. (“abstract” would be better, but see further...)

“Component” could imply hardware, which is exactly incorrect

The word “prepared” could be omitted from my proposal, if desired

The word “fungible” (set) could be included in my proposal, if desired.

. 24.19.113.134 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done meamemg (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software Project Management Link?

[edit]

One this page, there is text that mentions the word "project" and "project management". Does it not make better sense to reference the wiki page titled "software project management"? since it is in fact different from the general project management topic/disipline? Richlegge (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it already does link to that page. Dimawik (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality start

[edit]

WRT the current first paragraph: "Software consists of computer programs that instruct the execution of a computer. Software can be defined broadly to include design documents, specifications, and testing suites." It's not wrong, but it's very lame IMO. The opening of an article should cover a topic in the broadest scope. But software is _much_ more than computer programs. And why define what a program is? A link is all you need. And "software can be defined broadly to include" is awkward. That sentence is not a definition. It is a list of stuff that the is definitely not software even though it's related and therefore does not belong so early in the article. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is sourced and is a paraphrase of its quotation. The second sentence is also sourced and references this book. However, there's no quotation. It's curious that the second sentence's popup says page 61, but the citation's description says pages 237-253. Nonetheless, I believe page 61 probably says something about software including design documents, specifications, and testing suites. If software is _much_ more than computer programs, then what sourced material do you have to further describe software? List it here for a discussion. Regarding And why define what a program is?: It seems you're referring to the second paragraph. I agree the second paragraph requires secondary research. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, Software can be defined broadly to include ... testing suites." is a recursive definition. After all, testing suites are software. Timhowardriley (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding It's not wrong, but it's very lame IMO.: Please choose your words carefully. The word lame includes a meaning of "Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, dull, stupid, or uninteresting." Calling another editor's work these things is condescending. Perhaps you meant to say "substandard". Timhowardriley (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more opinion that I have to get out of my system. In other edit comments, User:Stevebroshar used the acronym "KISS". The last letter represents the word "stupid". I find it offensive to call other editors this. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect attribution for coining the term "software"

[edit]

History: Please remove or modify the incorrect credit to Tukey for coining the term "software" in 1958. The term was in use long before that; Tukey simply used it in a computational context. For example, see Ernest Bramah's Max Carrados short story, "The Ingenious Mind of Mr. Rigby Lacksome," first published in book form in 1927. (Max Carrados Mysteries). 174.204.65.172 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting observation. Ernest Bramah wrote, 'We have wheat "kings" and cotton "kings" and coal "kings"; railroad "kings", stationary engine "kings", and Mr Ford; "kings" in the realms of hardware, software, sectional bookcases, crime, and canned tomatoes.' Timhowardriley (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear that Tukey attached a new meaning to it. Prior to 1958, 'software' referred to materials that would decompose, usually fabrics. Since this isn't a dictionary, we shouldn't dwell on old usages of the word in the article itself. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  1. The Liability section begins with a questionable assertion: "Software is often released with the knowledge that it is incomplete or contains bugs. Purchasers knowingly buy it in this state ..." This seems counterintuitive and is unsourced.
  2. The Licenses section says: "Some software is in the public domain and has no restrictions on who can use it, copy or share it, or modify it; a notable example is software written by the United States Government." This seems counterintuitive and is unsourced. The United States Government is entitled to have 4th amendment privacy protections. I wouldn't dare to submit a FOIA request for the software used to penetrate a hostile country's computer.

Timhowardriley (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird lead

[edit]

The sentence in the lead, "Software consists of computer programs that instruct the execution of a computer" makes it seem like it implies "killing" to people that don't understand it. Additionally, the sentence doesn't describe what software *is*, it says what it "consists" of.

A clearer and more concise version of this lead should be something like: "Software is a collection of instructions or programs that tell a computer how to perform specific tasks. It is the intangible counterpart to hardware, enabling computers to process data and carry out a wide range of activities". 2A02:1810:363D:6700:A598:3E0:AAE0:31FD (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made a valid observation. English is an ambiguous language. Nonetheless, we're constrained by secondary research. The source being paraphrased says, "Software consists of computer programs that govern the operation of a computer." However, we can't plagiarize this. Also, the definition needs to be general enough to cover the broad scope of the subject. If it's too long or detailed, it will contain flaws. It's undeniably true that computers execute programs. That's just the jargon. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Computers do execute programs, but it says "instruct the execution *of* a computer", which to me seems to be incorrect. To me it sounds at least misleading. It could be worded better while at the same time respecting the source material. 2A02:1810:363D:6700:A598:3E0:AAE0:31FD (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet the authors of this book struggled, also. Timhowardriley (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link directs me to a 404 page. 😅 2A02:1810:363D:6700:A598:3E0:AAE0:31FD (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take two: here. Timhowardriley (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My idea for the definition should be, "Software is the plural of computer program." Then the rest of the article should be blank. See Talk:Computer_program#Merge_with_Software. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]