Sandman
That's a very ironic claim, Eric.

The topic is backup software, and Tony's insistance of forcing the word "protocol" in different ways in relation to it, ever changing the meaning and definition of the word and how the user and the developer in relation to it.

I have no problem using the word "protocol" in relation to a backup process, but Tony was very condescending towards nospam who hadn't heard it used that way, so I poked him to see if he could explain further. He couldn't and is now stuck in a death spiral contradicting himself with every post he makes.

Eric Stevens
You mean, you split hairs and twist words for the purpose of further tangling the issue.

Sandman
A "protocol", in this context, is a procedure in which a given task should be carried out. You have a list of actions to go through in the protocol. This is nothing weird or even strange even when it comes to backup. But it is unusual to refer to an automatic backup function as a "backup protocol" since by the very fact that it's automatic it means there are no steps to take. It is done automatically.

Eric Stevens
You are not thinking far enough back up the chain. A protocol establishes what should be done and possibly how, in broad terms, it should be done.

In the case of the single button backup, the designer's protocol says the user should be given a simple means of backup of a defined list of files (unknown to me) to a defined destination (also unknown to me).

The programmer then gets to work and writes the appropriate code. The protocol is written without any knowledge of the code that is going to be used to implement it.

The user's backup protocol for the single button backup might say 'I shall use the single button backup every day at lunch time' or 'once a week' or 'whenever I have done something important' or 'I'm never going to use it'.

The user's single button backup protocol neither requires nor makes any use of the code used to impliment the single button backup.

Sandman
Tony tried to retcon this into sayiing that the protocol is "internal" in the backup function and implemented by the developer, at which point I - a developer (and others) - pointed out that programmers rarely refer to their internal code structure as "protocols", so it was still an unusual word to be used. Not incorrect or even wrong - just unusual - and as I've said, the kind of term a layman would use to describe something he doesn't know anything about.

Eric Stevens
Of course programmers 'rarely refer to their internal code structure as "protocols"' for the simple reason that they aren't protocols. They implement the protocols which, as a result, end up being built into their very structure.