• el_pablo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only common thing between software and firmware is the coding part. Everything else is different. Fault tolerance, memory management, MCU optimization, etc.

    • Metallibus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s closer to the hardware. Generally harder to update. It’s less frequently updated. And it’s less fault tolerant.

      Idk, sure, it’s technically software. But it’s pretty clearly at least a distinct subsection that deserves it’s own moniker.

    • Shikadi@wirebase.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Firmware originally referred to things in ROM or EEPROM. Basically software that is firmly in place and doesn’t change, providing an abstraction layer between the hardware and software.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This treats the software as if it were a physical chip which can’t be practically changed due to the physics of microchips. The imutability of the storage medium is just a choice of the manufacturer. Sometimes this is a good cost saving feature and sometimes this so they can include anti-features such as preventing repairing your device (e.g. OneWheel).

        • Shikadi@wirebase.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m just telling you where the word comes from. It’s like floppy disks, the 3.5mm ones weren’t floppy but that’s still what we called them because they once were. Firmware used to be something you couldn’t easily change. It sits between the hardware and the software. What exactly would you call it if you think the term is bad?

            • 9point6@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Honestly, I think you’re wrong here, they were colloquially called floppy disks because at the time the whole thing was floppy. If the first floppy disks came in hard casings, they would never have been called floppy disks

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Take apart a 3.25" floppy disk, you’ll find the magnetic platter (disc shaped thing) is floppy.

                Take apart a hard disk drive, you’ll find the magnetic platter(s) inside are metal.

                If a floppy disk wasn’t named after the thing inside the casing, why wasn’t it called a floppy square or floppy rectangle?

                • Shikadi@wirebase.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It actually was originally a floppy diskette, but eventually shortened to disk because people are lazy

                  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There’s also the term Floppy Disk Drive, as opposed to Hard Disk Drive.

                    Diskette is a portmanteau of Disk and Cassette. The drive doesn’t read the cassette, it reads the disk inside the cassette. It doesn’t spin the cassette, it spins the disk inside the cassette. Hence Floppy Disk Drive. Sure calling the actual Disk+Cassette object as just “disk” is a little lazy, but calling it a floppy diskette is not lazy because the disk inside is floppy, and the the disk is the most important component of a diskette.