Downloading

[melstav]

A post from earlier today brought to mind a personal pet peeve of mine when talking to users -- People who are confused about what it means to "Download" something.


It doesn't help that, apparently, we ourselves have different definitions of what it means to download something.

I personally have always used "download" to mean "transfer data/files to the local machine from another device" and "upload" to mean "Send data/files FROM the local machine to some other device." I.e. to "download" is to "get" data. To "upload" is to "put" data. It's all from the point of view of the device that initiated the transfer.

Generally, I only use these terms when sending data over the network, as I usually think of operations involving, say, mobile computing devices and a USB or Serial port in terms of file operations (copy/move) even when forced to use a transfer utility like Palm Desktop. But I can
accept their use with portable/mobile devices that interact with a "host" terminal. Like data-collection devices that occasionally need to "send collected data to the database". (in which case it's an "upload". A "download" would be "Retrieve data from attached data-collection terminal.")

But, I digress. I was going to rant about users rather than ramble on about inconsistent established lexicon.


Things that "Download" does not mean, in no particular order:

• To use the Windows clipboard to copy text from one document and paste it into another.


• To export data from a database-driven application into a spreadsheet.


• To use "My Computer" or "Windows Explorer" to copy/move files from an inserted CDROM or floppy to the computer's local hard disk.


• To use "My Computer" or "Windows Explorer" to copy/move files from one folder on the computer to another.


• To manually enter data into an input form and save it to the database.


• To make a duplicate of a record in a database.


• To install an update or patch.

Granted, the process of updating or patching an application/firmware/whatever typically involves downloading a patch or update utility. But unless you actually apply said update, the fact that you downloaded it means jack squat. And to segue into a different (but related) rant, no you cannot run the update utility to upgrade a v1.x install of TheApp to v2.0 on a system that does not already have a copy of TheApp installed and expect to have a working copy of TheApp on your computer when you're done.

Also, "I got the download" is not a very useful statement, even if technically correct. We have several files you could have downloaded from our website, any one of which could be what you're talking about. Or you could be talking about something you got from somebody else.

And yes, I've had everything in the list and the two paragraphs following it come up in at least one techsupport call I've taken.

Comments

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

I think part of the ambiguity comes from people not really recognising the difference between downloading from a network computer and copying files on their own machine. They probably can't wrap their mind around the concept that the network computer is actually a completely different tower in a different location (sometimes not even the same building). Since they do it all from their computer, they can't tell the difference.

Of course, I am completely making suppositions. It could just be that they don't really realise there's a difference between "downloading" and "transferring" and think the two words are readily interchangable.

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

I think some people still think in terms of The Jetsons.... they push a button and stuff magically pops out of the walls (ostensibly). People don't seem to grasp that computers are mechanical objects, and work under similar rules as, say, plumbing or the internal combustion engine: stuff goes in, stuff goes out. If all the holes are plugged, good things (not to say magical things) happen.

Entertainment fiction is a lousy place to learn genuinely important stuff from. I can only imagine what nervous tics Darwin would have developed over Pokemon.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Well, technically, there's not as much difference on a logical level: copying a chunk of data from A to B.

It's that we have a metaphor of the stuff we don't have direct control over as being 'above' the stuff we do have control over, so that we kind of "reach up" to grab stuff.

We don't even really download off a local network any more; the network has usually become closely integrated enough with what we do that we consider it at least partly 'ours' - a corporate LAN, for instance. If our home PC connects to a neighbourhood wireless network that's run by a shadowy cabal of local propellerheads, we might download something off it, but if it's a local network that we're one of the admins for, we'd just grab or copy something off it - even if it was the same file.

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the direction of the data is where the two terms come into play... it's like up stream and down stream on a river: it's all streaming water, but if it's moving away it's heading down stream.

Someone actually used that kind of logic to answer the half full/half empty question: If the glass is in the process of being filled, and interrupted, then it is half full. If it's being emptied and only makes it half way, then it's half empty. It's fun watching people trying to wrap their heads around that one, though cleaning up the exploded bits can be a nuisance. ^_^

[melstav]

If the glass is in the process of being filled, and interrupted, then it is half full. If it's being emptied and only makes it half way, then it's half empty.

What if you're in the process of drinking out of the glass through a straw at the same time that someone is pouring something into it?

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

Then you're half crocked ;)

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

That, too. ^_^

And/or you have too much time on your hands. ^_^

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

Then you would be playing with forces man was not meant to know, cause an entropic feedback loop, and unravel the fabric of space/time like a cheap sweater.

I hope you're happy.

*Edit*

Dammit, I just can't leave this one alone. My pedantry must be appeased!

The glass becomes a mere conduit in that scenario (functionally no different than the straw or the vessel the fresh liquid comes from), and when the two forces are done, then it will depend on who has gained more ground, so to speak-- if you have taken out more than has been added, then the glass has been emptied, if only marginally.

As for the "half" part... that one I'd need a ruling on. Keeping in mind of course, that it's hard to just eyeball a precise 50% amount in a given container, odds are better that you will be off by a few (if negligible for the sake of argument) percentage points.

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

Given that true equilibrium is something the universe has been striving for since Mr. Big met Mr. Bang, what happens to the glass should a recirculating pump be introduced to keep the liquid levels at exactly 50% but constantly moving in and out?

Perhaps it should be a matter of relative value rather than one of arbitrary measurement. If I were thirsty, then it would be half empty. On the other hand if my thirst had been quenched then it would be half full. Now, if both your glass and your bladder were half full, which would you empty first? Of course if your bladder and glass were half empty, then perhaps you should get up from the barstool and change your pants.

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

Your second paragraph, while not irrelevant, introduces elements that are external to the glass, the liquid, and the designation of the terms.

Whether being thirsty and drinking from the glass, or merely pouring the liquid down the drain, the glass is still being subjected to the process of being emptied. If, on the other hand, your thirst has been satisfied then odds are the glass will be left alone, and thus probably (though far from certainly) not change state-- unless, of course, said thirst was quenched by taking a drink, bringing us back to emptying it again.

As to your first paragraph, allowing for physics and entropy really not liking a truly balanced system; for the glass to be in a constant state of being filled and being emptied such that the precise volume of liquid in the glass at any point in the experiment is a constant 50% of the glass' total capacity, then we must accept that BOTH states exist: It is equally half full AND half empty.

We could give it to Schrodinger's cat, the poor thing must be getting thirsty in there. Or not. Maybe.

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

Actually we must accept that both states must exist, since the glass's capacity defines a 50% quantity of liquid, it therefore must also have the potential to accept an additional equal volume to satisfy the 100% requirement. Schrodinger's cat, OTOH cannot be both dead and alive at the same time, hence the paradox.

Of course when a beverage is served the glass is never filled to capacity, yet we still say that it is full. So a glass containing 50% of it's capacity, is actually more than half full whereas a glass that has had 50% of its liquid removed is more than half empty.

I say that if there are any glasses containing a potable beverage (preferably a single malt scotch) we empty them thus rendering the discussion moot.

[ofstarstuff.livejournal.com]

The glass is completely full. 50% water, 50% air. Or whereabouts.

Or brandy.

[/soapbox]

[melstav]

Unless it is in an evacuated vacuum chamber.

[ofstarstuff.livejournal.com]

Now, sir, that would be a waste of good water/brandy/your beverage of choice, provided the room temperature is cozy enough for the liquid to start boiling, as it is wont to do.

[melstav]

I agree that allowing "Tasty Beverage" to boil away, even in the name of science, would be a shame and a waste, if it happened, the glass would certainly be less than 100% full. :D

OTOH, you could lower the temperature in the chamber as you evacuated it to keep the liquid from boiling.

I mean, nothing says that the interior of the vacuum chamber needs to be at the same temperature of the room outside it.

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

I feel quite proud to have started this long and largely useless tangent. ^_^

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

When I was first taught the definition of upload and download some 14 years ago my understanding was that it was always a process between the local machine and a remote machine. So it would count whether it was within a LAN, WAN, or an interconnected computer network (i.e., Internet).

That's not to say that I wouldn't also use the words "grab" or "copy" if obtaining a copy of a file from, say, my bf's computer. I'm just saying that what I learned would indicate that "download" and "upload" would also be correct on a local network.

[preserver3.livejournal.com]

"To export data from a database-driven application into a spreadsheet"

My one quibble, is if the database driven application is say phpMyAdmin and the export to spreadsheet is their export tool, then they are in fact downloading....

Otherwise, bravo... I have to decipher "I downloaded it to my PC..." comments from MBA's and Attorneys from time to time, and they can have some "inventive" ideas about what that actually means.

[melstav]

I suppose I could have been more specific and stated that both were on the same computer.

Which begs an interesting distinction. Would you still call it a "download" if phpMyAdmin (and the underlying mySQL database) were installed on the local computer?

And yes, I've seen that, too.

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

I propose new terminology for the new decade (yes, I realize the decade doesn't officially end until next year).

Inload: v.
1. To bring data from a remote location onto a local storage device.
2. Copying or moving data from a temporary or portable storage device to a storage device permanently attached to a local machine.
3. To supersize the fries and still consume them in the same amount of time it would normaly take to consume the regular size.

Outload: v.
1. To send data from local storage device to a remote location.
2. Copying or moving data from a storage device permanently attached to a local machine to a temporary or portable storage device.
3. What happens several hours after you supersize the fries and still consume them in the same amount of time it would normaly take to consume the regular size, especially if you had the large shake, too.

[melstav]

I realize the decade doesn't officially end until next year

Actually, I'd have to disagree and side with Wikipedia. When someone talks about "the 80's" they don't mean "'81-'90" they mean "'80-'89". So the "N0's" decade would start 1 Jan N0 and end 31 Dec N9.

Which is inconsistent with the common usage of "century" which has the Nth century going from 1 Jan N01 - 31 Dec (N+1)00.

Great, huh?

---

And as far as lexical suggestions, might I reccommend treating data as we do cargo on a ship? If you're moving the data off of the device you're talking about, you're "Off-loading". If you're putting data onto the device you're talking about, you're "On-loading" (or just "loading").

But then you get into issues with "load" being used for opening datafiles into applications and for starting programs running.

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

When someone talks about "the 80's" they ... mean "'80-'89".

I would define that as a sociological decade and not a chronological one. "The '80s" represent a set of (10) years which include the number 8 as the second integer to the left of the decimal, which for the 20th century would be the span of Jan. 1, 1980 to Dec. 31, 1989. The 8th decade of the twentieth century is the span of ten years from January 1, 1981 to Dec. 31, 1990.

---

"Off-loading" might be more descriptive if you are removing the data from the source as it arrives at the destination. If you are merely copying it, nothing is "Off" at the source.

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

That argument about when the decade/century started got me really annoyed back then. When a baby is born, we don't say it "starts" on its first year-- the little one may only be four months old, but there's no denying that there he/she is. Midnight to 1:00 AM is the same-- After midnight it's the next day (convince employers and the law otherwise, I dare ya), so why should 2010 not be the next decade?

*Headshake* ^_^

[lunatic59.livejournal.com]

Some would say that the baby starts at conception, yet we don't say the baby is a year old after it's first three months out of the womb because convention suggests that we begin chronologically aging children from the event of birth. If the Nth century does indeed start on January 1, N01, (according to the acepted Gregorian Calendar convention starting on January 1 of year 1) then the first decade of the Nth century must start on the same day. Or are you suggesting that the inception of the first decade precedes the century by a year?

It's all semantics, anyway. Whether it is the first year of a new decade or the last year of the previous, we all know it's the same day ... um, what day is it?

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

Which is inconsistent with the common usage of "century" which has the Nth century going from 1 Jan N01 - 31 Dec (N+1)00.

That has always confused me, because to me a century would be from (example) 1 Jan 1900 - 31 Dec 1999 and 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2099.

Overall, I'm not sure it really matters since it's all arbitrary anyway. :X

Occam's Razor

[major-error.livejournal.com]

This can all easily be explained by the following statement:
"The great majority of people are so thoroughly uneducated about the technology they interact with, therefore any attempts by them to communicate these interactions will result in much consternation for the educated few."

or, put in far simpler terms:
"Users are idiots."

Re: Occam's Razor

[melstav]

"Users are idiots."

Thus our regular need to vent about them.