6 ms·

Where does this meaning for "sync" come from? Rsync does work this way, but sync is abbreviated from synchronization and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply

by Maakuth 12y ago

Where does this meaning for "sync" come from? Rsync does work this way, but sync is abbreviated from synchronization and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply any directionality in it, and dictionary definition [1] seems to agree. 1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synchronize http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synchronize

lutusp 12y ago
> Rsync does work this way ... Indeed it does, and that is the true meaning of sync. Consider this example: $ rsync -a --delete (A) (B) If (A) is empty, watch (B) become empty too. The point I'm making is that the use of the "--delete" option causes rsync to agree with the true technical meaning of "sync". Without it, the two directory trees (A) and (B) cannot be guaranteed identical at the end of the process (the real meaning of sync). > ... and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply any directionality in it ... Of course it does. How else can you make two directory trees identical if your intention is to delete some files from both trees? > and dictionary definition [1] seems to agree. Never rely on a dictionary in a technical discussion. Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean. This is why "literally" and "figuratively" are listed as synonyms.
- Maakuth 12y ago
  If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone. That doesn't seem right. Compare this to Dropbox's model of syncing: intentional changes (yes, deletes as well) are synchronized and this is done multidirectionally between all the participating devices. This is what seems to me like a better definition of sync. Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync". Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from?
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone. Not if the user selected the new iPhone as the source. In fact, that's the only way the described outcome could happen -- assuming the desktop machine originally had a full collection of music and the iPhone was empty. > That doesn't seem right. True, it doesn't seem right. But the customer is always right. > Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). A perfect example. What if your phone is the source of most of your appointments and contacts? Wouldn't it seem logical to make the phone the source for a sync transaction? Let's take the next step -- what if your phone is the source of your music collection? What if you add music to your phone while on the road and want to add those tracks to your desktop machine's archive? To do this, the sync program must accept your instructions about which device is the source and which the destination. So you must not get it wrong. In other words, in order to get the expected outcome, you must know how sync works. To repeat your earlier point: > Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). Yes, that's right, but you're not taking that example to its logical conclusion -- the smaller, more peripheral device, the phone, is the source for the sync. If that device has no music on it, the desktop machine will have its music collection erased. > I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync". Yes, true, which explains why I've been hearing so many accounts like yours -- people rely on dictionaries to define technical terms and end up erasing their music collections. > Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from? Logical thinking: 1. "Sync" means that two directory trees end up with the same content -- exactly the same number of files, same names, same everything. 2. For (1) to be true, the program performing the sync must sometimes delete files as well as add files. 3. For (2) to be true, the program must know which directory tree is the source. Therefore the user must know this too. But users, reliant on dictionaries, may not understand what sync actually means. Q.E.D.
    - guygurari 12y ago
      Suppose I create appointment A on my phone's calendar, and appointment B on my laptop's calendar. After syncing, B shows up on my phone, and A shows up on my laptop (as I would expect). Who is the source and who is the target in this case? According to your definition, this is not 'syncing'. But for most people, it is.
- mcphage 12y ago
  > Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean. I have no idea what you think the definition of a word is, besides what people think it means. Are you imagining a platonic Word floating in the ether somewhere that we see in a mirror, dimly? Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from? Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon?
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I have no idea what you think the definition of a word is, besides what people think it means. Really? There are any number of words whose proper meanings and contradicted by what people think they mean. Examples abound, here's just one: Literally: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane> 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> This is what people think "literally" means. But it is not what "literally" actually means. The common perception is false. > Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from? 1. Only for certain terms. There are plenty of examples. 2. On the topic of words, you need to learn the meaning of deconstructive postmodernism, the fascinating idea that there are no shared ideas, that everything is a matter of opinion. > Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon? Classic straw man.
    - BorgHunter 12y ago
      > This is what people think "literally" means. But it is not what "literally" actually means. The common perception is false. Whence did the "correct" definition of "literally" arise, and how does this origin differ from that of the "incorrect" definition?
      - lutusp 12y ago
        You missed my point, which is that, no matter which definition one chooses, a word cannot simultaneously mean what people think it means, and the opposite of what people think it means, at the same time. Even given the fluid nature of word definitions, that's not rational. That's why I choose this example over and over again, not because of what "literally" means, but because it cannot possibly mean A and not-A at the same time. And some words have technical meanings that are contradicted by popular usage, like "theory" in science. Many people think "theory" means "hunch" -- "but it's just a theory, you know?" In science, theory has a specific meaning contradicted by the everyday understanding. In the present case, file synchronization has a specific meaning that many people don't know. This misunderstanding causes them to lose their music collections.

by Maakuth 12y ago

lutusp 12y ago

> Rsync does work this way ... Indeed it does, and that is the true meaning of sync. Consider this example: $ rsync -a --delete (A) (B) If (A) is empty, watch (B) become empty too. The point I'm making is that the use of the "--delete" option causes rsync to agree with the true technical meaning of "sync". Without it, the two directory trees (A) and (B) cannot be guaranteed identical at the end of the process (the real meaning of sync). > ... and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply any directionality in it ... Of course it does. How else can you make two directory trees identical if your intention is to delete some files from both trees? > and dictionary definition [1] seems to agree. Never rely on a dictionary in a technical discussion. Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean. This is why "literally" and "figuratively" are listed as synonyms.

Maakuth 12y ago
If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone. That doesn't seem right. Compare this to Dropbox's model of syncing: intentional changes (yes, deletes as well) are synchronized and this is done multidirectionally between all the participating devices. This is what seems to me like a better definition of sync. Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync". Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from?
- lutusp 12y ago
  > If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone. Not if the user selected the new iPhone as the source. In fact, that's the only way the described outcome could happen -- assuming the desktop machine originally had a full collection of music and the iPhone was empty. > That doesn't seem right. True, it doesn't seem right. But the customer is always right. > Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). A perfect example. What if your phone is the source of most of your appointments and contacts? Wouldn't it seem logical to make the phone the source for a sync transaction? Let's take the next step -- what if your phone is the source of your music collection? What if you add music to your phone while on the road and want to add those tracks to your desktop machine's archive? To do this, the sync program must accept your instructions about which device is the source and which the destination. So you must not get it wrong. In other words, in order to get the expected outcome, you must know how sync works. To repeat your earlier point: > Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today). Yes, that's right, but you're not taking that example to its logical conclusion -- the smaller, more peripheral device, the phone, is the source for the sync. If that device has no music on it, the desktop machine will have its music collection erased. > I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync". Yes, true, which explains why I've been hearing so many accounts like yours -- people rely on dictionaries to define technical terms and end up erasing their music collections. > Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from? Logical thinking: 1. "Sync" means that two directory trees end up with the same content -- exactly the same number of files, same names, same everything. 2. For (1) to be true, the program performing the sync must sometimes delete files as well as add files. 3. For (2) to be true, the program must know which directory tree is the source. Therefore the user must know this too. But users, reliant on dictionaries, may not understand what sync actually means. Q.E.D.
  - guygurari 12y ago
    Suppose I create appointment A on my phone's calendar, and appointment B on my laptop's calendar. After syncing, B shows up on my phone, and A shows up on my laptop (as I would expect). Who is the source and who is the target in this case? According to your definition, this is not 'syncing'. But for most people, it is.
mcphage 12y ago
> Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean. I have no idea what you think the definition of a word is, besides what people think it means. Are you imagining a platonic Word floating in the ether somewhere that we see in a mirror, dimly? Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from? Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon?
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I have no idea what you think the definition of a word is, besides what people think it means. Really? There are any number of words whose proper meanings and contradicted by what people think they mean. Examples abound, here's just one: Literally: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane> 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> This is what people think "literally" means. But it is not what "literally" actually means. The common perception is false. > Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from? 1. Only for certain terms. There are plenty of examples. 2. On the topic of words, you need to learn the meaning of deconstructive postmodernism, the fascinating idea that there are no shared ideas, that everything is a matter of opinion. > Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon? Classic straw man.
  - BorgHunter 12y ago
    > This is what people think "literally" means. But it is not what "literally" actually means. The common perception is false. Whence did the "correct" definition of "literally" arise, and how does this origin differ from that of the "incorrect" definition?
    - lutusp 12y ago
      You missed my point, which is that, no matter which definition one chooses, a word cannot simultaneously mean what people think it means, and the opposite of what people think it means, at the same time. Even given the fluid nature of word definitions, that's not rational. That's why I choose this example over and over again, not because of what "literally" means, but because it cannot possibly mean A and not-A at the same time. And some words have technical meanings that are contradicted by popular usage, like "theory" in science. Many people think "theory" means "hunch" -- "but it's just a theory, you know?" In science, theory has a specific meaning contradicted by the everyday understanding. In the present case, file synchronization has a specific meaning that many people don't know. This misunderstanding causes them to lose their music collections.