The battle rages on! I'm struggling to define "agnostic computing" and am unsure if the currently accepted general definition that agnostic computing is hardware and software designed to be compatible with multiple systems, or non-specific or dependent, is enough for me.
There actually are no hit results for "agonstic computing"
in Google. Only very similar concepts.
Or, maybe it's too much for me.
There is "computing" or digital life in the Google, Apple, or Microsoft ecosystems. By the looser definition each one of these is agnostic -- you can live life under any umbrella while dipping into the ways and means of any of the others at any time. So, sure, they are technically agnostic platforms, but attempting to live digital life agnostically under each of them means fighting their insistent ecosystem-specific feature set.
Under a stricter definition, agnostic computing is to be using applications or approaching digital life using tools which focus on their baseline service without attempting to branch the user experience into other disparate services and functions that they operate. A clear example would be between photo sharing/storing services Google Photos and Photobucket. Both are designed to be a place where you upload pictures and share them, but Google of course requires your indoctrination into the Google ecosystem and is allowing you to use its service with the underlying drive to get you using GMAIL, Contacts, Google Drive, etc., etc. at all times. Photobucket by contrast is focused on its core service offering and thus leaves you feeling completely free as you go about your serious digital distribution work.
There are really countless examples like the Google Photos/Photobucket comparison and it really makes me wonder how far a person could enforce the philosophy on today's user and enterprise platforms. Or, for that matter, would it even be worth it to try.