5 ms·

It's not a big deal, but I find it annoying when people call something an OS when it's not an operating system. Like how xfinity has their "Entertainment Operat

It's not a big deal, but I find it annoying when people call something an OS when it's not an operating system. Like how xfinity has their "Entertainment Operating System" or whatever it is.

NoraCodes 4y ago
I think it's a big deal. I keep seeing things like that and getting kind of excited - "is this a new corporate-supported Linux distro? something cooler?" - and it never is. It sucks.
- linux2647 4y ago
  $WORK’s corporate values, etc are distilled into an “OS”. It’s been that way since it was a startup, but I still find calling it an “OS” weird.
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    I don't understand how you can say >values, etc are distilled into an “OS”. When its literally not an Operating System. Its an application, no? It runs in user space on top of a real Operating System
  - _gmnw 4y ago
    Speaking of weird ways to name something, why did you write it as $WORK? It doesn't look like it's publicly traded.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - blooalien 4y ago
      To a programmer or scripter, an uppercase $WORD starting with a dollar sign often denotes a variable. Thus, $WORK could denote any sort of work, or if you're religious, you might worship a $DIETY (but which one we don't know without asking, so it's "variable" information).
      - pavlov 4y ago
        Sadly this script that depends on a supreme being will probably break in production because the correct spelling is $DEITY... I guess supernatural dependencies are frowned upon these days anyway.
        spicybright 4y ago
        That's why I always put both $DEITY and $DIETY in my .bashrc file.
        bradknowles 4y ago
        I support ${DEITY}, to cover the use case when there isn't one.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- hermitdev 4y ago
  I agree. Words matter and have specific meanings. I'm tired of words being subverted for other purposes. Like "chemical free". So, you're telling me it contains...nothing? Or organic foods which has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of organic from a chemistry standpoint. Conflating terms like this is purposeful misinformation with the intent to confuse and mislead (usually so you can charge more because the consumer thinks they're getting something different than what they're actually being peddled). The most charitable I could call it would be anti-consumer. From a cursory look at WorkOS, it's not an OS. It's at best an app framework.
jaywalk 4y ago
Sure Comcast's "X1 Entertainment Operating System" is technically just a suite of applications that run on top of an actual OS, but at least it comprises everything an end user will interact with. It's much closer to an OS than WorkOS, that's for sure.
- usrn 4y ago
  That's arguably not too different from Android.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    That's a great point, actually.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
For bonus points, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS was a thing that was an OS - when I first saw the title I thought of that first.
michaelsalim 4y ago
You're not the only one. It's blatant false advertising and downplays the complexity of an actual OS. Another example is monday.com claiming to be a "work OS"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
demarq 4y ago
Imagine you are a customer looking for an authentication solution to help you integrate with customer enterprise systems. Were you going to search for work OS? No you’re going to pick from one of the words above. I think inflating a product by obscuring it behind grandiose facades is a rookie marketing mistake. Unless your apple and need a name for a new Color or something.
akvadrako 4y ago
And what do you think an operating system is? It doesn't need to run on hardware, as most Linux-based OSes run on hypervisors. It doesn't need to have multitasking, since DOS is clearly an OS. I would say it's just something that runs apps.
- dirtball_ 4y ago
  > It doesn't need to run on hardware, as most Linux-based OSes run on hypervisors. Virtualization hypervisors typically emulate hardware. They provide a "virtual machine." It may not be real hardware, but for most purposes the function and appearance is the same from within.
endofreach 4y ago
Yeah, it should be part of their slogan, if even at all. But „like a OS for X“ to explain is fine.

It's not a big deal, but I find it annoying when people call something an OS when it's not an operating system. Like how xfinity has their "Entertainment Operating System" or whatever it is.

NoraCodes 4y ago

I think it's a big deal. I keep seeing things like that and getting kind of excited - "is this a new corporate-supported Linux distro? something cooler?" - and it never is. It sucks.

linux2647 4y ago
$WORK’s corporate values, etc are distilled into an “OS”. It’s been that way since it was a startup, but I still find calling it an “OS” weird.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  I don't understand how you can say >values, etc are distilled into an “OS”. When its literally not an Operating System. Its an application, no? It runs in user space on top of a real Operating System
- _gmnw 4y ago
  Speaking of weird ways to name something, why did you write it as $WORK? It doesn't look like it's publicly traded.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - blooalien 4y ago
    To a programmer or scripter, an uppercase $WORD starting with a dollar sign often denotes a variable. Thus, $WORK could denote any sort of work, or if you're religious, you might worship a $DIETY (but which one we don't know without asking, so it's "variable" information).
    - pavlov 4y ago
      Sadly this script that depends on a supreme being will probably break in production because the correct spelling is $DEITY... I guess supernatural dependencies are frowned upon these days anyway.
      - spicybright 4y ago
        That's why I always put both $DEITY and $DIETY in my .bashrc file.
      - bradknowles 4y ago
        I support ${DEITY}, to cover the use case when there isn't one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
hermitdev 4y ago
I agree. Words matter and have specific meanings. I'm tired of words being subverted for other purposes. Like "chemical free". So, you're telling me it contains...nothing? Or organic foods which has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of organic from a chemistry standpoint. Conflating terms like this is purposeful misinformation with the intent to confuse and mislead (usually so you can charge more because the consumer thinks they're getting something different than what they're actually being peddled). The most charitable I could call it would be anti-consumer. From a cursory look at WorkOS, it's not an OS. It's at best an app framework.

jaywalk 4y ago

Sure Comcast's "X1 Entertainment Operating System" is technically just a suite of applications that run on top of an actual OS, but at least it comprises everything an end user will interact with. It's much closer to an OS than WorkOS, that's for sure.

usrn 4y ago
That's arguably not too different from Android.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  That's a great point, actually.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

For bonus points, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS was a thing that was an OS - when I first saw the title I thought of that first.

michaelsalim 4y ago

You're not the only one. It's blatant false advertising and downplays the complexity of an actual OS. Another example is monday.com claiming to be a "work OS"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

demarq 4y ago

Imagine you are a customer looking for an authentication solution to help you integrate with customer enterprise systems. Were you going to search for work OS? No you’re going to pick from one of the words above. I think inflating a product by obscuring it behind grandiose facades is a rookie marketing mistake. Unless your apple and need a name for a new Color or something.

akvadrako 4y ago

And what do you think an operating system is? It doesn't need to run on hardware, as most Linux-based OSes run on hypervisors. It doesn't need to have multitasking, since DOS is clearly an OS. I would say it's just something that runs apps.

dirtball_ 4y ago
> It doesn't need to run on hardware, as most Linux-based OSes run on hypervisors. Virtualization hypervisors typically emulate hardware. They provide a "virtual machine." It may not be real hardware, but for most purposes the function and appearance is the same from within.

endofreach 4y ago

Yeah, it should be part of their slogan, if even at all. But „like a OS for X“ to explain is fine.