Talk:GNU Screen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Axe what?
The tutorial certainly does not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a howto. But is the subject really noteworth enough, anyway? --Egil 19:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- A simple quickstart could be helpful and relevant. Not much point making this an entire manual, mind you- GNU didn't provide one. --MichaelSoulier 02:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I removed the quickstart/tutorial section, the removed text can be found here. Quickstarts aren't included in articles like VNC or Mozilla Firefox, or in encyclopedias generally (wikipedia is not an instruction manual). Tutorials/quickstarts should be located in External links or Wikibooks (example: wikibooks:Programming), and at this point we have at least two external links that cover that info. I've left the {{cleanup}} tag because the numbered list should probably be converted to paragraph form to better suit the encyclopedia. --Interiot 11:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- While I agree that detailed manuals should be linked to (and not included), I see no reason for a minimal set of most-frequently used commands to appear in the article. See Emacs, bzip2, and many other articles on CLI-based programs. A good rule of thumb seems to be whether the how-to mainly serves to better the description of the topic at hand. Perhaps the old version was getting long and/or not serving that purpose. But certainly some amount of available commands would help the description. -- Karnesky 22:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'd prefer to leave it out, because I think that instructional material almost never belongs in an encyclopedia (except for things like regular expression where some syntax minutae is fairly central to understanding the topic). And Egil might have agreed (the tutorial section was still fairly small when s/he protested).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This isn't a programming language that needs to distinguish itself by syntactical flavor; it's a fairly unique program that's distinguished by its features. And I don't know that the bzip2 article is necessarily an ideal to move towards. But if we must include a minimal set of commands, the Emacs example isn't too bad, since it has a somewhat short (13 line) table that's visually distinct and therefore very easy to skip over if the reader wants to. --Interiot 07:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Kind of software
I have just changed where it said GNU Screen was open source, to free software, as this is more accurate. The GNU project makes free-software. -Josh
- All Free software is open source software but not all open source software is Free software... --maru (talk) Contribs 05:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes but Free-Software is a subset of open-source. As it is a GNU project I think free-software is more accurate, anyway I'm sure there wouldn't be any disagreements about this. -Josh
[edit] History?
Anyone know how old screen is? I tried checking the changelogs, but they start at version 2.3, and don't include any dates. I've been an active user since the early 90s, but I think it's much older than that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcusramberg (talk • contribs).
- 1987, according to the copyright & usenet post --Karnesky 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
