Talk:Architecture of Mac OS X
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to Apple Computer, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Macintosh and Apple Computer. We need all your help, so join in today! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
 |
Architecture of Mac OS X has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] Copyvio?
Do we have permission to reproduce content from developer.apple.com? At a glance, I can see content under Kernel that comes from here, stuff under "Classic Environment" that comes from here and stuff under "System-level technologies" that comes from here. AlistairMcMillan 09:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Those were used as sources, I have modified the tense of the data quite considerably. Those are technical notes for reference use, why is Apple going to get concerned over a slightly modified version of pure facts/reference on an encyclopedia? — Wackymacs 10:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask them for permission. — Wackymacs 10:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- From their website terms and conditions: Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, no part of the Site and no Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including “mirroring”) to any other computer, server, Web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Apple’s express prior written consent. [1] It is very rare that people allow their website content to be used elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 10:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- But it reads no content may be copied... for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise.... Is Wikipedia considered publication or distribution? Anyways, even if they do get ticked over a mild rewording, like Wackymacs said, they're pure facts and you can't exactly get in trouble for distributing that. freshgavin TALK 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia is considered publication. When you put content up on a website for people to read you are publishing it. And yes, Wikipedia is considered distribution. Look at all the other sites that mirror Wikipedia content. And this isn't about "pure facts". This page is composed of great big chunks of content directly copied and pasted from developer.apple.com. AlistairMcMillan 12:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Despite what myself and Freshgavin have said, AlistairMcMillan goes ahead and marks it as copyvio, just as I was about to rewrite most of it anyway. This could have been done after it was finished on peer review. :( — Wackymacs 08:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Even if you re-wrote it, the copyvio content would still be there in the history. It needs to be erased from the history which basically means wiping everything out since your first edit to this page included the copyvio content. That also means your new temp page needs to be marked as copyvio, since it included the copied content. If you want to start this page over, please do so from a blank slate. AlistairMcMillan
- Despite what myself and Freshgavin have said, AlistairMcMillan goes ahead and marks it as copyvio, just as I was about to rewrite most of it anyway. This could have been done after it was finished on peer review. :( — Wackymacs 08:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- From their website terms and conditions: Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, no part of the Site and no Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including “mirroring”) to any other computer, server, Web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Apple’s express prior written consent. [1] It is very rare that people allow their website content to be used elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 10:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask them for permission. — Wackymacs 10:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I have started a rewrite based on what is already in the article at the temporary page linked from the copyvio status. Anyone is welcome to make changes to avoid the copyright violation. — Wackymacs 08:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The temp page is also a copyvio? --hydnjo talk 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- See AlistairMcMillan's reason above. I'm working on rewriting it from scratch, based on what they have said. — Wackymacs 21:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 13 deleted edits?!
What is wrong with this article that someone keeps deleting? I'm going to rever it, and if they have a problem, drop me a note here.HereToHelp|talk 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Scratch that, I'm not a sysop. But even if it isn't PD we should have SOMETHING. put a wikification tag, paraprase, it's better than zilch.HereToHelp|talk 00:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I have begun the article again, I have recreated it as a stub that we can all build on top of, without it being a copyright violation this time. — Wackymacs 11:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Criticism
I noticed the box comments about citations and sources. I searched for references to back up the claims of "unpopular in some quarters"and "vocal minority of Mac developers feel that Apple should move". The only items I were able to find were various rumors, suppositions, predications, and explanations of "how" Apple Computer could do this — but no actual complaints or discussion specifically on why they should. In other words I didn't find a 'smoking gun' such as a message board with dozens of complaints that would, by reference and citation, be the 'vocal minority'.
So what's next with this section?
