Talk:Kerio Technologies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
I think the article needs a rewrite. It looks like an advertisement. Meneth 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am the one who originally posted the info on Kerio/Tiny Firewalls (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiny_and_Kerio_firewalls&oldid=149515192), and as you can see on that old (now deleted) page's discussion/talk page, I did it for the following reasons:
"Note: I created this page mainly since (a) it's hard to get a grip on which versions of these firewalls that exist and since they've switched ownership so many times, (b) since there's hardly anything on the subject on Wikipedia, and (c) since the free version is very useful and should interest many Wikipedia users. If anyone cares to deep dive into technical specifications please do so, and then put headline "Development" or "Versions" or something on what I wrote. I will also try to fix redirection for related pages, but I'm new at this."
Since then my post has been altered and moved several times. A bit funny that a firewall that's been lacking a wiki page for 6 years now becomes so popular to alter and rewrite and move. I suppose it's with good intentions altough I agree the new shape is a bit like an advertisement, since it displays all products rather that focusing on the free PFW. And I had plenty of footnotes, some of which have been replaced by other footnotes which I don't think are more trustworthy than my original ones. I acutually wouldn't be surprised if someone at Kerio has been tampering with the page. For example since "uncomfortable" links stating that the Kerio split from Tiny was unvoluntary have been replaced with links to some google talk page saying it was all planned. And since the date for each version is now published here - who cares about the date for each minor version change? That's my humble opinion.
- Still at the same time I'm a bit tired of people accusing wiki pages of being advertisements. It's not too bad now. But it's a bit "advertisementy" isn't it? --DavidGGG 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind reverting it basically back to my original post.
[edit] Article is fine
If this article is so much like an advertisement, what you are proposing it is advertising?
I have been writing an article for some time privately on my blog as part of a post about software firewalls on windows, which is why I was able to source so much information so quickly. I never wrote it up on Wikipedia as I never released the article to my blog, it's still filed as incomplete. Consequently up-on recently finding the original article about Tiny/Kerio I decided to utilise my resources/information and more accurately cover the subject.
I rewrote the article and split it up appropriately due to the following:
- a) As a guidance to the versions as "it's hard to get a grip", so I have covered almost every historic version I could find. (I'm assuming you have got to grips with it now).
- b) There was no article on Tiny Software, Tiny Personal Firewall, CA Personal Firewall, and very little information for Sunbelt Software, Sunbelt Personal Firewall, Kerio Technologies, and Kerio Personal Firewall.
- c) This information will appeal to Wikipedia users as there was limited information on the subject anywhere else. There are also references to where old versions can be sourced.
- d) I decided to include all the "Versions" I could find with citation so that in the future people could add "Development" sections, which shows the change log.
- e) Trying to cover all the different software versions under one article when they went in different directions was painful, considering an article for Sunbelt Personal Firewall and Kerio Technologies already existed as well.
- f) Some of the information on the original was inaccurate, and required citation.
- g) You mentioned "I'm new at this", I could tell, so I decided to give you a helping hand.
Ultimately reverting back to the original article would be stupid.
--Hm2k 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
