[cjaybo]

I’d argue that the degree of portability implied by the term is very much context dependent. “Portable between Linux systems” is a perfectly valid use of the term, imo.

Do you take portable to mean a program that can run on every processor arch and OS available?

[bheadmaster]

> Do you take portable to mean a program that can run on every processor arch and OS available?

The definition of the word "portable" is not the point of this comment thread (although if you want to hear my definition, see the reply to a sibling comment).

Let's take the context into account:

    > hashworks:
    While I support systemd timers over cron, AFAIK cron has stuff like @hourly.

    > caiusdurling:
    Some cron implementations do, it's not portable.

    > bheadmaster:
    Neither are systemd timers. I don't think there's a single system out there implementing the systemd timer interface.

User caiusdurling said @hourly is not portable between cron implementations as a way to discredit hashworks' argument about cron having @hourly.

However, that's a disingenious argument, because systemd timers aren't any more portable than cron implementations that use @hourly - in fact, there isn't a single system out there implementing the systemd timer interface except systemd.