This is just nitpicking over the fact that a specific metaphor doesn’t map 1-to-1 with the target domain. No metaphor does, that’s not the point of using one.
The metaphor in this case is pretty straightforward as are its limits, and it doesn’t appear to be causing confusion with people misidentifying attributes of the metaphor that don’t map to the software domain.
(And to boot: there are actual software supply chains with a traditional supplier/vendor relationship…)
> The metaphor in this case is pretty straightforward as are its limits, and it doesn’t appear to be causing confusion with people misidentifying attributes of the metaphor that don’t map to the software domain.
One of the central points that the author makes is that this is in his opinion not true, and he provides evidence for this.
The metaphor in this case is pretty straightforward as are its limits, and it doesn’t appear to be causing confusion with people misidentifying attributes of the metaphor that don’t map to the software domain.
(And to boot: there are actual software supply chains with a traditional supplier/vendor relationship…)