Linguistic doubt.

[Enrique]

Take the following sentence: "With the rapid emergence of smartphones, tablets and a myriad of handheld devices running powerful softwares, the popularity of desktops is slowly falling". This is standard English, as it is spoken today. Now, if you take a respectable dictionary, you'll see the noun software is uncountable. Why do people insist in using the plural? In the above sentence, the word software can be replaced by program, resulting in a correct statement.

I have my own theory regarding the use of "softwares". Despite the definition given by Wiktionary, software is an abstract concept. You can touch a tree, but you can't touch a wood (forest). The same difference exists between program and software, though due to its very nature, you can't touch a program. Specifically, this word can be used in two different senses. On the one hand, it is the sum total of all programs that exist or could exist. This is the meaning it has in a sentence like "Software lags hardware in the race for automation". On the other hand, take the sentence "The software running in this machine is the newest of its kind". Here, it denotes the set of all programs running in the computer. Perhaps this is what confuses people. For there being two machines with different software, could we speak of two different "softwares"? In my opinion, the use of the plural for this word is highly ridiculous, as well as the phrase "a software" (as ridiculous as "a water", except in poetical usage). As you can see, there is no doubt here. Ignorance is one of the most powerful forces that operate in the evolution of a language.

[Sorrano]

If you break down "softwares" to wares, you will find that wares is always expressed in the plural. However, "softwares" (in this reply editor) shows as a misspelled word. Typically, I've only seen "software" used, both in conjunction of single machines, multiple programs or multiple machines with multiple programs.

English is a weird language.

[Enrique]

Yes, he wrote an article called "Linux vs Other Operating Systems : 7 common myths busted", which really made no other thing than put Linux above Windows and Mac OS X. The main argument he used was that Linux is the result of the cooperation between people all over the world. But this is precisely the reason why it has so many failures. To coordinate so many people is not so easy as coordinating people in a corporation, where there is a "vertical" hierarchical structure. I've heard many people speak badly of the Linux kernel, and the documentation is a mess.

[Rocco]

I use Linux as my main OS... Wonderful operating system, no viruses, no malware, no defraging....you computer just works. Just a few of the many great benefits of Linux. I hate windows!

[Enrique]

I use Linux as my main OS... Wonderful operating system, no viruses, no malware, no defraging....you computer just works. Just a few of the many great benefits of Linux. I hate windows!

That's true, security is one of the advantages of Linux. And file fragmentation is almost negligible. But I've heard (or seen) Joerg Schilling, the author of cdrecord, to say very strong things against the linux kernel (among others). And in one of the man pages of a certain Linux program, the author says "If you are unlucky enough to have Linux, blah, blah..."!

[AeolianHarp]

That's true, security is one of the advantages of Linux. And file fragmentation is almost negligible. But I've heard (or seen) Joerg Schilling, the author of cdrecord, to say very strong things against the linux kernel (among others). And in one of the man pages of a certain Linux program, the author says "If you are unlucky enough to have Linux, blah, blah..."!

It should be software, but if you are talking about 2 different computers with two different softwares then I suppose you could say softwares.

Linux is the best OS there is- I would never go back to Windows!