(no subject)

[waterspyder]

...incorporate cross-platform, technology agnostic delivery with longer term enterprise architecture in mind...

technology agnostic?

WTF does that mean?

Comments

[parisbaby-2003.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that tech had a religion.

"Where is your God now, motherboard?!?!?!?!?"

...nope, I've got nothing here.

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Technology agnostic means it doesn't care about what technology it uses. Sort of like cross platform, but less issues. So for instance, PowerPoint is cross-platform, as it exists on the Mac, but it's not technology agnostic, since you need a different program on the Mac, and it works differently. You could also make an argument for it not being technology agnostic because it does not work on Linux, but its generally assumed that when you use the term you're not saying it should work on *everything* (so it can still be technology agnostic if it doesn't work on your BlackBerry).

[zenten.livejournal.com]

However, PowerPoint *files* probably are technology agnostic.

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

How do you know that?

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure.

The wikipedia stub seems to fit however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_agnostic

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

Text files are technology-agnostic: They don't care what you're running, if you can have files, you can have text files. XML is the same way.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Except for the stupid CR vs CR-LF thing with Unix and DOS.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It was an example.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I know. I was just illustrating that even the simplest cross-platform standards are less than perfectly transparent.