Template talk:Infobox OS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox OS page.

Contents

[edit] screenshots statement

The person adding the screenshots included a silly statement: Do NOT change the screenshot unless there is BIG change in the UI. When taking screenshot, please resize your window (e.g. 640*480), disable your extensions and use the default theme.

I recommend an entirely different set of guidelines &mbash; the screenshot in the infobox should be "new-os" i.e. as basic as possible:

  • Make the screen the most popular resolution for the time: 1024×768. This accurately reflects what most users would be seeing when they install the OS.
  • Create a new user called "Wikipedia" or "wikipedia" — this should disable all extensions, set the UI to the default theme and background and place the OS defaults into the default places. If you OS does not do this(!!!) I suppose you should do it manually.
  • Open a Window with the default file browser and a window with the default web browser, pointed to the default folder and the wikipedia page respectively.
  • Change the screenshot EVERY time there is ANY change in what you see of the UI (in this screenshot i.e. the file browser and the web browser). There is no reason to to keep up with every change in OS's.

Additionally, I think you should be able to add a "used-os" screenshot in the OS of the article that includes things like extensions, custom themes, and little things like your desktop icons are different, that exemplifies different applications, maybe this screenshot could be at 1280 × 1024 just because that would allow you to show more. --Ctachme 20:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh... all the images are shrunk down to about 250-300px... what resolution did you think you would see them at? I took this from the software infobox. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the thumbnails, I'm talking about the screenshots themselves, obviously, the thumbnails will be smaller. --Ctachme 13:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Well, all I can say is a) be bold, and b) I took this from the software infobox. Go ahead and update it! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Outsourcing of latest release version/date

See Template talk:Infobox Software. --Melancholie 23:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User Inferface

Since 84.121.33.199/84.121.3.160 wanted it, I cleaned up their additional option so that it could be used for multiple operating systems. Janizary 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not an additional, but instead mandatory option now.
Unless you figure out how to make existing articles using this template look decently (that is, not the way Windows 95 looks now), I'm moving the updated template to a new name. --tyomitch 05:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Done, fixed that myself now =) --tyomitch 19:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Change width of left column

The width of the left column is, currently too short, so that text in it is several lines, leaving lots of ugly, unprofessional space-consuming extra space. How can this be fixed? - Centrx 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix this ugly infobox or help me fix it? - Centrx 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to fix it by surrounding the long bits with . It did not yield very attractive results. This might be improved by making the whole infobox wider. Some of the longer pieces of text we might not be able to help, as stopping them from wrapping would require the box to become too wide. --James Hales 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information in the info box

I believe that there should be more places for information in the info box. This could especially be useful for GNU/Linux distributions, where information such as the source model, kernel, and even screen shots are usually more or less the same. Possible extra pieces of information could include something along the lines of:

  • The philosophy or purpose of the OS (i.e. server, desktop, developer, beginner, localisation, all-encompasing, etc.)
  • The target audience of the OS (i.e. beginners, advanced users, persons in a particular profession)
  • Package management / update model (i.e. complete binaries, binary patches, source and with / without dependency resolution)
  • Installation media (i.e. CDs (+ no. of), network / Internet install, etc.)

Currently only small amounts of information provided are really useful for the largest category of OS's there is. I would like to have some comments on this, and see if we can do anything about it all. There could concievably be more pieces of information that could be added that would be relevant for all OS's. James Hales 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good suggestions, but I have a few issues:
    • Philosophy: far too nebulous, can't apply this to all O/Ses. Also leads to pontificating, something we want to avoid (ever seen OS advocates at work? It's not pretty).
    • Target audience: I'd like to see what you'd get for a Mac OS... again, too nebulous and subjective.
    • Package management/update model: now that is a good idea.
    • Installation media: also a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Supported platforms? NicM 16:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC).
Also a good idea. When I get a chance I'll do it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Supported platforms is a good idea.
The idea of having philosophy / target audience was so that there would be some useful information for a lot more Linux distributions. Granted, OS's such as Windows, Mac OS, Fedora and Debian all try to cater to every possible niche, but there are only really a few that do that. A lot of Linux distributions go in for specialization, i.e. distros intended mainly for servers, software development, localization, etc. so listing those things would be useful. Otherwise I'd just like to see some more fields perhaps to make the OS sidebar more useful to the myriads of OS's out there with more or less the same kernel, source model, etc.
Perhaps the philosophy / target audience problems could be fixed by having a set list of options to choose from. I understand the concerns about the philosophy, so perhaps we could use another word to describe the property, i.e. purpose, which would hopefully prevent advocates from going overboard. James Hales 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't thing installation media is a good idea. It's whatever the current technology is for when the software was packaged. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It does vary from OS to OS, i.e. how many CDs are required, if there is a DVD version, or if there is a network / Internet install version. James Hales 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have put in two new fields: supported platforms and package management. It seems that someone has already put in an update model one. The reasoning behind the placement is that it is just underneath the update model placed there before, and the latest release date, which I believe should go first, I believe that the website should be placed down the bottom and I believe that these fields fit in amongst releases rather than kernel/default ui/license. An example of the use of the new fields can be seen on the Fedora Core article.

I would still like to see some way that the purpose / target audience can fit in. Maybe we should fall back to Wikipedia policy which is that information should be verifiable. The purpose / target audience should be what the producers / developers market it as, and not what the users believe it is. --James Hales 08:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "package manager" field name, it doesn't fit in well with any of the *BSDs ports systems. How about "Software installation method" or suchlike? NicM 09:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
I agree. Software installation method itself sounds long, but it could apply to a load of things, so is good. Perhaps something that is shorter and sounds better could be chosen later, but it gets the idea across perfectly and and also allows for OSs without managers per-se, i.e. where you might have to compile software manually, or use crappy, third-party installation EXEs like Windows. --James Hales 09:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "version" vs "current version"

I don't understand what the purpose of having both "version" and "latest stable release" is - many uses of this infobox will be on things which have had multiple versions (even something as seemingly singular as Windows 95 or Windows 98), so only the latter will make sense. On some articles, the two can be used for an internal number and a more descriptive release name, but if that is the intended distinction, a better label is needed - "latest stable version"/"latest stable release" - and I would think just using "Name (number)" would be fine in most cases. Or is it just meant to be a kind of "overarching" version number (so, Win98=4.10), in which case what does one put on Ubuntu? - IMSoP 15:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a catch all template. It is most likely that we will need to create a new template for Linux distributions. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Somebody already removed the bit I was talking about. I don't think that Linux distributions are any more of a "special case" than any other OS - we have an article on Mac OS, one on Microsoft Windows, and one on Debian, each of which have had many releases; we also have an article on Windows Me, which really only had one release, but that's OK, we still want the same box, because for instance Windows 95 did have multiple releases. - IMSoP 12:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source model

For the record, I meant source model to mean open or closed source. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but how is that different from "license", and what is appropriate to say for a distribution that includes open and closed source software, and that may be developing some of its specific packages as open and some as closed? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my idea is that you can divide up the software world into two classes of software: open sourced software and closed source software. It helps those who don't know that what source model each license is run under. Is there an issue with this, by any chance? I'm flexible on how we do things. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There really is no point in doing that since anyone who puts in a license usually wikilinks it to the license article, giving the reader info on what it means. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Some OS's can come under many different licenses. Saying open / closed source is just like summarising that "the licenses used are open / closed source style licenses". I think it is a good field; mighty useful. It is redundant, but so is all of the other information in the Infobox. --James Hales 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
...Because most of the infobox is nearly pointless. - Centrx 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what's a source model?

I think the license field is adequate. What are the technical issues related to deleting this field? It appears this template is used on 250 articles. --71.161.215.238 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably should at least be made clear that the license vs. source model fields are somewhat redundant, and that they are optional (I assume?) This won't stop people reinserting stuff into those fields left, right and center, of course, which would be the ideal situation. But I guess to not frustrate people who find the fields useful in their articles, you'd have to create a second, crippled version of this template, which is not an elegant way at any rate. Not to mention spoken articles... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Package manager should be package format

Among the many other problems with this infobox, "package manager" should instead be "package format", such as "DEB" and "RPM", as this is important in terms of inter-operability, etc. Different software can use different package management systems, but interpret the same format. Overall, this item should be removed anyway. It is only really relevant to Linux distributions in terms of comparisons, and it is not so important that it needs to be at the top of every page. -- Centrx 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is optional. And it would be best IMO to mention both manager and format, eg "APT (.deb)". NicM 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
You need two separate fields. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary. Just add a note saying it would be preferential to mention the package format if appropriate. NicM 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Icons

Hello, I thought it would be nice to have icons for the various systems. Obviously to integrate them easily into the template they would have to be renamed to match the name parameter: ((Image:OS_{{{name}}}_icon.png))

--Iancarter 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't permissible on Wikipedia. There is no valid Fair Use rationale for including copyrighted logos on so many pages. The Linux icon is fine, of course, but all the others will have to go. Warrens 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. "so many pages"? it would only be on the respective OS page (via the template), which I believe already contain logos in huge high quality formats.
  2. "no valid Fair Use rationale": Nominative use allows references to products that would otherwise not be identifiable (plus: the image license clearly references the copyright owner). Having icon versions would allow articles to contain nicer (or less text-cluttered) list and tables.
WP Policy is not clear about this.

--Iancarter 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Logos, and Template:Logo. It should be clear that the only valid purpose for using a copyrighted/trademarked logo on Wikipedia is for illustrative purposes in the article that discusses the subject which the logo represents. That's the extent to which Wikipedia tolerates fair use. Practically speaking, this means that the official Microsoft logo is valid on the Microsoft article page, but not elsewhere in the encyclopedia. There is a lot of precedent for this on Wikipedia; for example, you can have a look at the edit history for Template:Windows-stub to see various attempts to include a Microsoft Windows logo on hundreds of pages; these have been quickly reverted by many different editors. Warrens 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
so, I just read all articles and discussions; I still do not see a problem - WP:Logos states that it is OK to use the logo as long as it will not negatively affect the owner. I am sure you agree that the OS template is something very similar to the OS article (which is why it exists). I also agree that placing a logo in a stub template is not a good idea because the stub articles might not be NPOV. Having and using logos is not the problem, it is using them in a context that is unknown, has negative connotations, or might negatively affect the business of the owner (even if negative might be NPOV like missing features in a comparison). No sane business will have anything against free brand-strengthening if it is neutral or even slightly positive (but that again could conflict with WP:NOT). I tried to look up Microsofts trademark policies but that takes me to a nice 404 :-) hmmmm. I would also like to know if you work for a major OS company or are a trademark lawyer. --Iancarter 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Who I work for is completely irrelevant to any discussion regarding article work on Wikipedia. We're here to write a free encyclopedia -- stay focused on that. Whether you see a problem or not isn't really relevant, either; it is going to be a problem, and that's why I've reverted your changes. We have to make sure we avoid adding any unnecessary non-free material into the encyclopedia that doesn't materially contribute to it. For fair use, one "current" logo is sufficient for illustrative purposes, and additional logos may be used only when the logo is discussed as part of an article. Additional logos for purely decorative purposes are unnecessary and harm Wikipedia's case for fair use of this material. You and I don't have to like that or agree with that, but that's how it is.
Anyhow, in accordance with what the fair use rationale given in Template:Logo states, we have logos for all the major operating systems (and specific versions thereof) in the encyclopedia, and associated with the articles on those operating systems. They're almost all of pretty good quality, too. These are sufficient; let's leave it at that and focus on improving the content of the encyclopedia itself. Warrens 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Arg: ignorant and unbacked statements like that's how it is and it is going to be a problem are neither helpful nor good conduct. I read your comments, i read the policies and your edit history - and still I see no problem with my suggestion. You must excuse that I am forced to perceive your edits and rationale as unreasonable and egoistic. I am not willing to participate in the edit wars your claim of dominance on OS articles has caused you to enter. I asked you politely and rethorically what your profession was because your actions and comments are judgemental or biased - I am questioning your knowledge on trademarks and the WP policy. Give it a thought and take it down a notch. I ll just keep out of your way - all I tried was to suggest something that would "improve the content" by creating visual reference not "decoration". Sorry if you find this offensive - feel free to delete this post. --Iancarter 02:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Warrens knowledge of Wikipedia policy is apt for this case. Saying that that's how it is is fair enough here because Warrens does not have to justify Wikipedia policy, but you have to follow it to contribute here. Take it up elsewhere if you disagree with the policy. Wikipedia does not allow unnecessary use of trademarks. They are allowed once for the visual identification of a corporation, product, etc. but are not allowed to be used en masse, so to speak, i.e. in a template. If an OS page does not have a logo on it, you might be able to include a logo there, but you must justify fair use for on that page (the reason logos/trademarks are not allowed in templates).
If you want a reference, go to Wikipedia:Fair use and search for "They should never be used on templates". That is on the topic of fair use of images.
Adding a 16x16 icon to a template does not add anything to a page except to make it a tiny, tiny bit prettier. Visual identification is not a good justification for a 16x16 image which is very unclear. No loss. Note also that some trademark holders place guidelines on use of their trademarks and logos, often setting a minimum size for their logos (which is usually well above 16x16). An example I can think of is the Firefox and OpenOffice.org trademarked logos (look at the guielines for Firefox). --James Hales 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks - that makes more sense. Sorry for the hassle. (I still like icons) --Iancarter 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Price/Cost

What do you think about the idea of adding a parameter cost to the template. It would indicates the eventual OS cost (or the caption "free of charge" if it's free) expressed in the currency of the state where its authors live and a possible link to a part of the article which talk about the different price of the product in more detail (around the world). So for exemple, for Microsoft Vista it could be the average and a link to the table that details it. 16@r 14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

See Template talk:Infobox Software#Language 16@r 14:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programming languages

Since "language" isn't documented here (though one can figure it out by looking at other templates, e.g., the Infobox_Software template) it's used in some places to list supported programming languages. RSTS/E shows an example.

That's not right because the link on "language(s)" points to natural language. But this suggests a field for "programming languages" might be useful.

Paul Koning (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size

I would add the size field, because this is important to compare Live USB distros (see Comparison of Linux LiveDistros). --Mac (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)