Talk:Octoshape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you want to delete it?

This is a genuine technology, which has just as much right to be mentioned as anyother P2P streaming programs such as peercast.

You can find a technical review on http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_303-octoshape.pdf from the renowned organisation of public broadcasters in europe.

Best, Bernino Lind

This article is a verbatim copy of a PDF, likely the one you refer to. This infringes copyright (unless you own the copyright and agree to put the PDF into the GNU Free Documentation License). Aside from the copyright issue, it is not written in the neutral point of view and encyclopedic style that Wikipedia requires. Octoshape has relatively few Google hits, indicating it is not (yet) particularly notable. Just because something is "genuine" doesn't mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. Haakon 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A big problem with the article is that it is not written in encyclopedia style (it may be good essay). Since it is very specific I do not expect a Wikipedia editor will pick it up and give it better form (in reasonable time frame). I still think it would be best to be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I wanted only to explain that in Spain, "Radio Televisión Española" (RTVE) (the national radio and television public service broadcaster) is broadcasting both its "24 Horas" and "Docu TVE" channels using octoshape's plug-in. I was able to freely download the plug-in from a link in the RTVE site. Nevertheless I had never seen that plug-in before. I also think that the article should be either rewritten from scratch or deleted. 81.203.157.106 15:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cons: Can't try it out

It's not free, and the free trial demo is not valid for home users. Only companies and organizations. --ScarletSpiderDave 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandwidth usage analysis

I am User:Henning Makholm, an employee of Octoshape, editing from an ad-hoc account for CoI segregation purposes.

Most of the figures currently given in the Bandwidth usage analysis section are completely wrong (possibly the result of flawed measurement procedures) and make our technology look significantly worse than it actually is. As the entire section is unsourced and appears to be the original research of the anonymous editor who inserted it, could some uninvolved editor please remove it? Thanks. Octoshape 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done: as you say, those stats are completely unverified. Tearlach 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)