this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
108 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37383 readers
318 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 33 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because you're confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

[–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

creating an app that essentially copped their proprietary OS

The OS hasn't been 'copped'. They emulated the protocol, and your lack of understanding and confusing the two has led us to having this conversation.

[–] FZDC@beehaw.org 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Stop arguing semantics. We're done here.

Compare to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that's all.

Yeah, if you want to make up your own definitions to the words you use, and then order those around you to stop arguing semantics, then you're basically not having a conversation at all.

Your comment was confusing because you don't seem to understand what is or isn't part of an operating system, and the mere mention of the operating system was pretty far removed from any relevance to your own point.

It's a proprietary service, and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position, but it would be an incoherent position to claim that only OS developers should have that right.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position

Can it really? Cool! Thanks! That’s my position then.