softwares
Not a word, my dude, the same way happies isn’t a word.
As long as they’re federated, does it matter if there’s multiple different softwares? Wouldn’t they be able to communicate with each other, so it’s not like each would be in its own silo?
Or can matrix only talk with matrix, IRC with IRC, XMPP with XMPP, etc?
As long as it doesn’t result in silos, I think having multiple choices is a good thing. It gives you options, and can grow in multiple directions to suit different needs. Plus there’s redundancy so no single point of failure. Part of what’s good about open source is that anyone can fork it, right?
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 12 hours ago
“happy” isn’t a noun, so no one would try to make it plural.
“Software” is a noun, but the plural version is often the same, i.e. “installed a lot of software.”
But since I was discussing “multiple different” instances of software, it made sense to treat each one as a discrete “software,” thus I used “softwares” to communicate “multiple different discrete instances of software.”
Just like how “people” is plural for “persons” but “peoples” means “multiple groups of people.”
deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
A lot of these aren’t at all.
artyom@piefed.social 1 hour ago
Yes, they have to be the same protocol to communicate.