Talk:software

What is the correct word when I want to say something about multiple instances of software? Like "there are a lot of word processors out there, but all those software?? dont have feature x"

Software in plural (not one, but many things) is just software — It's an non-countable mass noun and is always treated as a singular object, even if more than one title or item is kept in mind — whereas softwares is deeply and horridly incorrect and programs should instead be used.

Your example should be like this:

There are a lot of word processing programs out there, but all those programs lack feature x.

or

There is plenty of word processing software out there, but much of it lacks feature x.

There's also a wordreference.com forum topic that discusses this.

-Mardus 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Rfv-sense: adjective: like software. The first 100 hits at google groups:"very|too software" include but one adjective hit ([1]), and that's in a different sense.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, adjective section removed. (BTW, that link is not to an adjective hit. It took me a bit to figure out what that writer is saying, because (s)he's misspelled "A is to B as C is to D" as "A is too B as C is too D", but once you've got that, you see that software is being used as a regular non-count noun.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

1953 and 1956 usages

Through a Google Books search, I uncovered two print usages of the word "software" that predate John Tukey's 1958 publication, and which I believe are the earliest known print usages of the word in its modern engineering context:

Carhart, R.R. (1953 August 14) A survey of the current status of the electronic reliability problem‎^[2], Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, page 65:

"It will be recalled from Sec. 1.6 that the term personnel was defined to include people who come into direct contact with the hardware, from production to field use, i.e., people who assemble, inspect, pack, ship, handle, install, operate and maintain electronic equipment. In any of these phases personnel failures may result in unoperational gear. As with the hardware factors, there is almost no quantitative data concerning these software or human factors in reliability: How many faults are caused by personnel, why they occur, and what can be done to remove the errors."

The same author uses the word again in the same sense, in a later publication:

Carhart, R.R. (1956) “The Systems Approach to Reliability”, in Proceedings, second National Symposium on Quality Control and Reliability in Electronics, The Institute of Radio Engineers, page 149

First, the scope of the program should include the entire system. As an example a missile system includes the vehicle and warhead, the auxiliary ground or airborne equipment, the support and test equipment, and the operating personnel. In addition, the interactions between these various elements, hardware and software (people) must be recognized and included as the glue that holds the system together".

Radimvice (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation for origin

The etymology says "first used in print by Richard Carhart in 1953", but the link purports to be from 1947: "Research Memorandum - The Rand Corporation / Issue 1131 / By Rand Corporation · 1947".

Is this the correct issue? Looking around, the issue numbers don't seem to correlate with dates, so perhaps the metadata is wrong.

-- General Wesc (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@General Wesc: It's an error in Google's metadata. Searching "14 August 1953" within the book reveals a snippet of it on the title page, and all citations of the work, plus Rand's own page for it, similarly list 1953/August 1953. (In fact I just noticed you can download a pdf scan from the Rand page for free, which confirms the date.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)