Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 1dom 287 days ago
That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration.

A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
2 comments
snozolli 287 days ago
it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless

VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host.

That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole.

A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.

Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.

link
1dom 283 days ago
That's fair. I was aware of that, but I wasn't thinking of that use of the word when I read it, I thought of the other meaning of "seamless".

> Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.

The problem is it also has another specific meaning in the context of integrations in general: it means low fuss, minimal setup, no troubleshooting.

A different selection of words (windowless?) would have avoided this debate.

link
gchamonlive 287 days ago
> what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless

That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...

link
1dom 283 days ago
I was using the other definition of "seamless", meaning easy, no fuss, minimal difficulty etc.
link