Talk:Mac OS X v10.5/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Native FLAC support

According to some reports there will be FLAC support natively. Is it worth a mention in the article? Viamp 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if it comes from some person's blog... Wikipedia expects contributions to be based on reliable sources. -/- Warren 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Features announced in ADC on iTunes sessions

Dunno if anyone else here is a member of ADC, but I watched a few sessions from WWDC '06 that were recently release on iTunes. They mention a number of important new features for developers, including NSOperation, NSOperationQue, resolution independence in Cocoa, and 64-bit system frameworks. I'll add a segment on these features sometime soon unless someone else beats me to it. BeardedCat 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the 64-bit system frameworks are already mentioned on the 10.5 page - that's the first item in the "New features" bulleted list. (It's actually "libraries and frameworks"; not all the system libraries in OS X are frameworks, e.g. UN*X libraries such as libxslt, libpcap, ncurses, the Net-SNMP library, etc. aren't frameworks.) Guy Harris 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting though they are, the WWDC sessions are covered under NDA. Be careful about what you mention. Full 64-bit support has been confirmed by Apple on the public section of their web site: http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html . Resolution independance has not been confirmed to my knowledge outside of NDA. The presence of the scaling factor property in the Quartz Debug tool distributed with the Tiger Dev Tools is a hint that it exists. Details on new frameworks with the exception of CoreAnimation have also not been formally disclosed to the public. We also need to cite sources for information here, and we can't reference information covered on ADC. -- Tim Bedford 82.196.42.132 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/ mentions resolution independence for Carbon and Cocoa - and is accessible to at least one non-ADC member. Guy Harris 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "second quarter 2007"

The stated release date of Leopard is "Spring 2007", not "second quarter 2007". I realise the Southern Hemipshere issue, but that's no excuse to introduce an outright factual inaccuracy. --82.45.163.4 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism reverting

I've added sources. What I want to know is why others reverted my earlier re-addition(s?) of the criticisms. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and either of those criticisms are easily verifiable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the saddest comments I've seen on wikipedia for a long time. Thankfully, it's wrong. --Steven Fisher 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You are again making the mistake of applying WP:BLP to an article about an operating system. The criticisms did occur. I agree they are (mostly) invalid. But if you choose to make Wikipedia your venue to rebut the trade press, do it with words, not reverts. --- tqbf 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The source cited in the 'Criticisms' section failed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability, as per Steven Fisher's link; it only listed quotes from blogs and forums. Amalgamating quotes does not an article make — given the bulk was written by non-reliable authors, it does not constitute reliable, and thus not verifiable. The section also lacked a neutral point of view, though it wasn't too bad in this regard. In context of the lack of reliable sources, however, it couldn't stand on its own. I changed the section title because without that first part, all that remained was the commentary on analyst and market reactions.
I also removed the Paul Thurrott item because it didn't belong in the new section, and should probably be in its own 'Criticisms' section. I don't have any other cited criticisms on hand, so I thought it best to leave that for another, better prepared editor. Please add a new Criticisms section, but only with well-researched sources and neutral commentary. Dislike for a product does not need to seep into factual description. We're all better off if Wikipedia reads objectively. --199.212.21.22 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


After counting all the languages, I found that OSX has over 150 languages and dialects. Only the criticized amount showed up, because those are the "standard" languages. Go to a sub-menu and you will find a treasure of more than 150! A lot more than 20, Ih'd say.

[edit] Use of screenshots

People, you can't simply copy screenshots from Apple's web site and upload them to Wikipedia. There is a very clear warning about this right on the upload page, which you had to scroll past, so there's really no excuse for not knowing this. Repeated attempts to include copyrighted material in an article can result in being blocked from editing, so... don't do it! This is an free encyclopedia, not an extension of Apple's marketing efforts. Please review Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. -/- Warren 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the clear warning you speak of means not to steal images from a web page or a search engine. There are not images from a webpage, but are SCREENSHOTS, which when done correctly are completely legit. Further they are marked correctly, AND have rationales. What are you up to? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Screenshots are images. Apple's web site is a web site. Now, read this carefully so that you can wrap your head around this vital detail (which Wikipedia has saw fit to put in large letters with a red box around it): "Do not upload images found on websites". Let me repeat: Do. Not. Upload. Images. Found. On. Web sites. Kapesh? This isn't that complicated to understand! Also, you can't justify the inclusion of several copyrighted images by simply tacking on a fair-use rationale; you're still expected to follow the rest of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, which has the expectation that non-free content will be used minimally in an article. The general exception is this: when it comes to screenshots of software, the convention has been to allow for user-generated screenshots. You'll see this all through the Windows articles... nothing comes from Microsoft. If you can provide your own self-generated screenshots of Leopard, that'd be ideal. If not... well... leave it alone. -/- Warren 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use policy states that when there is no free equivalent available copyrighted image may be used (FU#1). The screenshots have been provided by Apple for the same purpose of visual identification as it will be used here, and there is previous publication of the content (#4). Since we cannot provide user generated images yet, I would say these two make provision for use of these images. However, it also states that it should be used minimally (#3a) and only when it significantly adds value to the article (#8). As such, providing so many images looks like a list of images, and it does not help to understand the features anymore than just one screenshot. Plus the features themselves are presented as a list. As such, by #8 of fair use policies listing the images is not allowed. But a generic image for use in the infobox may be, provided it is scaled down (to less than 500px width) before uploading. My vote would be for Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg as this shows most of the new UI. --soum talk 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The pre-WWDC version of the page also had a Time Machine screenshot. I never bothered with removing that one because it demonstrates something that's radically different than Yet Another iChat Screenshot, and I'd probably argue for its continue inclusion by saying that it's a good application of ignoring the rules. I'd still like for someone to provide their own Time Machine screenshot, but people are under some pretty strict NDAs about these sorts of things. -/- Warren 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I said, as long as it not just another screenshot, but rather something unique, images from these batch can be used without problem. Just including from inclusions sake (when there is so much copyrighted content apart from the UI itself) is what is not allowed. Maybe the finder shot (it includes the 3D dock, and the transparent menu bar) be included and the time machine one later. The desktop image does not show anything not present here. Or even better, the quicklook one. It disseminates all info from the finder one plus quicklook. That summarizes all the new features that is communicated by the screenshots. --soum talk 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Or should the desktop image be preferred as it shows all the apps. Whatever, now that the discussion is going on, I think its time for unprotection. --soum talk 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the warning is only for newbies who don't know any better, not for experienced editors with good rationales. There are no free replacements due to NDA. Besides, Apple posts pictures that are explicitly stated to be allowed on other websites. If I can find a link I'll put it here later. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Edit warring is not constructive. Please discuss the issue first, and address concerns raised by both sides. Because it was not being done, I have protected the article, so that it is discussed not fought over. I am here, once some settlement is reached I will unprotect. --soum talk 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Page needs un-protected so that the main screenshot image can be removed. All images on this page are from the web or a search engine and need removed as Warren says. NO IMAGES! Again, the first image of Mac OS X in the infobox is also off Apple.com. REMOVE IT! Even though as the other poster said, these images have been here FOR MONTHS, it is now time to remove them because someone believes screen captures are now illegal! Sweet article this will be when all images are removed. Maybe we can get one screen capture by someone illegally downloading Leopard and uploading it, or by violating their NDA. Oh but wait, that is also illegal. SO NO IMAGES AT ALL FOR THIS ARTICLE! Thanks guys. Stellar work. Whitneykitty 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nja247 is simply wrong on that point. May 6 - 2 images. March 25 - same 2 images. February 25 - same 2 images. January 7 - same 2 images. December 12 - same 2 images. October 4 - same 2 images. August 8 2006 - same 2 images. In fact, at no point in the history of the article has there been more than two images for any length of time. -/- Warren 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, guess you haven't been to the article in the last month! Or did you conveniently miss that to make your point? Anyone that lies or calls others names to make their point hasn't a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How bloody typical, now nothing can be updated. These images fall within fair use and have for months. They were simply updated last night. Don't you realise they're screenshots? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Theres no need to whine about guys, protection is not endorsement of the version. While there is no doubt that the images are great for visual identification, there are lot of problems in using vendor supplied images directly here. Though they have a fair use rationale, it applies to only the software in question. There are other elements (desktop background, file contents in the quick view and cover flow images) which are not exactly covered by this rationale. Thats why we prefer self taken screenshots, but wait, thats not an option here. You should really discuss the merits of having these vendor-supplied images. Is there critical commentary for all of them? I will unprotect when you have decided what to do. Meanwhile I am removing all images and linking them from here for easy retrieval.
Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg
Image:Leopard Finder.jpg
Image:Timemachine-prescreenshot.jpg
Image:IChat-prescreenshot.jpg
Image:leopard_quicklook.jpg

--soum talk 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude there's nothing to discuss, you and Warren have taken over the article. I find it quite interesting when I click on his user page there's many articles which he created and works on that are about Windows, yet he was so concerned over a Mac OS X article! Also, the admin works on some of the same articles, and going through each of their histories I can see a pattern of them working together. Disturbing, but whatever. Do what you want to this article, as it's now been totally hijacked.

Lastly, admin's are not supposed to get so emotional over their duties, so it's quite odd how defensive you became when someone complained about premature protection. I can see from the history of this page's main article that the other user (nja247) said in his/her comments that they should discuss the issue on the talk page before reverting, yet your friend Warren continued to revert and then got you to protect it. Whitneykitty 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Dude, we may work on same articles, that doesnt mean there is a conflict of interest when I take a look on an article he work on but I dont. Plus working on Windows articles doesnt mean one cannot work on Mac articles as well. Plus if you look at his contribs history, he works on lot of Mac articles as well.
Regarding what I did, I did not do to endorse any point of view, or prevent development of the article. And I already said, just because I have protected a version does not mean I am endorsing it. Because no party was interested in talking, I had to do this to prevent the article from becoming unstable. I think I already said I am involved in the discussion and will unprotect it as soon as a decision is reached. No, I dont endorse an image less version, but I had some concerns about the images as well. So, I have removed them (as not everyone could) as long as they are being discussed. And yes, I support partial inclusion as well. See my comment on the above thread. --soum talk 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to point fingers, though the points raised are interesting. I personally don't care that much, so this is likely my last comment on the matter unless all hell breaks out. However, and from my understanding the issue is that a screen shot of Leopard from Apple is wholly different than a screen shot of Leopard by someone else? And this policy can be verified as construed this way by a majority of the community and not just a few over vigilant users? If so, then that is it and I made a mistake. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not exactly judged by differring rules. Both sorts of images are copyrighted, but when you make your own screenshots, you can atleast make certain parts free (like screenshots of the documents open), thats what makes them preferable. But since here it is out of question, Apple images can be allowed, as long as they are not being turned into a list and are in a scaled down version. See thread above. Isnt that what I said? --soum talk 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with images and copyrights is a HUGE pain in the ass on Wikipedia, and we have to work within those rules as best we can. I think you do great work, really, I do, and if we weren't bound by these restrictions I wouldn't be making an issue of the screenshots at all. We still have lots of things unrelated to screenshots that we can do with this article to make it great in the coming months, so let's focus on that instead. -/- Warren 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, now the server is not letting me unprotect. --soum talk 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know Warren and his admin friend decided that no screenshots were acceptable, however how come you (warren) feel that the screenshot of the Leopard desktop (the first image) is acceptable, whilst you believe the other four are unacceptable? I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic? There is no logic here. The "minimal use"-paragraph in the fair-use law is for protection of property, like preventing someone from taking hundreds of screencaps from a movie. The screenshots of this article is purely educational and provide great insight in how Leopard works and looks. I'm sure Apple don't mind that an article shows off the aesthetics of Leopard. I'm sure they only thinks of it like free advertisement.
Even though you may not like Apple(has almost only edited MS-pro articles), I see no reason why screenshots should not be allowed. It is not wrong with screencaps until the opposite is proved. Since it is not proved, I fixed the article back again.
Oh and BTW, if you lock the article destroyed, you may as well remove all other screencaps from Wikipedia and locks those too.
(Kris33 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC))
You have almost certainly misunderstood our position. It has never been said there should not be any pictures. Indeed pictures are absolutely necessary. However, these pictures are not ours, as such we cannot use them indiscriminately. We have to use them as sparingly as possible, which means, as a first step, remove redundancy. As an example, there are three pictures: one of the desktop and the dock, another with desktop, dock and finder, and the third with the desktop, dock, finder, and quick view. Now, whatever information is given by the first is also in the second, and the information in both of them is also disseminated by the third. So the using third makes both the first and second redundant. By minimal use clause, since first and second are redundant, they should be removed. Now throw in the spaces pic, since the third picture (from the previous example) and the spaces one has very little overlap, they can be used. So the real question is not whether images are allowed or not (they are indeed allowed), but which set of images keeps the image count to minimum without compromising the depth of information provided. --soum talk 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So basically you are asking me to download the Leopard beta illegal when it leaks, take some screenshots and crop away the dock?
Well, atleast wait with removing the images a little while, Leopard has to leak first and I has to download and install it.
(Kris33 15:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC))
Do you have problems understanding English, or is it my English that is incomprehendible. Okay, I will try again. I was referring to the same batch of images that have been released by Apple. With respect to Image:Leopard Finder.jpg and Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg, there is nothing in Image:Leopard Finder.jpg that cannot be seen in Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg. Thus, including Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg makes Image:Leopard Finder.jpg redundant. By minimal use, since using since Image:Leopard Finder.jpg adds nothing to the information content over Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg, Image:Leopard Finder.jpg cannot be used here. That was just an example. What we have to work out is which images have redundancies. --soum talk 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Clear copyright violations must be removed on sight. This is not a point of negotiation. -/- Warren 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The level of defensiveness, rudeness and name calling being undertaken by an admin worries me. Further, the buddy system you've got going on also worries me. After the tip, I have reviewed both of your histories and profiles and see an alarming pattern, which I will be reporting to the appropriate party on Wikipedia. I think I need to be as vigilant as you are over the screens in regards to the potential abuse I'm witnessing, which thankfully, I've never witnessed until now! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

@ Warren: Are you a lawyer? I hope that you're prepared to explain to all of us here how a screenshot image violates US copyright law. Further my question was never answered; why are the four images that you consistently remove under the protection of your admin friend not okay when the first image in the article which was retrieved the same way is? You're simply being anal and want it your way or nothing (which is why you had the page locked yesterday, and will likely do again). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images secn break

Sure, go ahead and report wherever you feel like. And we are not the only editors who share articles on their watchlist. And can you please point where have I been uncivil and abusive of my powers? (yeah I did protect the article once, that was only to get the discussion going, not to prevent the screenshots from being added; otherwise I would not have unprotected it so soon). Althroughout this discussion, I have tried to explain the problems with the images, and all you have responded with is that since me and Warren edit similar articles we are some kind of pact going on between us. WP:NPA states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" constitutes a personal attack. Since you are bringing on our ideologies to create a red herring, IMO that consitutes a personal attack as well. --soum talk 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, discussions since a month back does not count (as WWDC was that day only). All of you were only adding and deleting, not talking, so it had to be done to get your attention. --soum talk 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Noted, as I plan to regardless. Further, to answer your question you insulted someone about their language skills just so you could make your point, and further yesterday when I voiced my concern you told me that I was 'whining'. Not exactly the most professional demeanour for an admin. I'll leave the conclusions to a larger body however.

Lastly, no one still has shown me where in US copyright law it states that screenshots cannot be used so long as their use has sufficient rationale; i.e. for illustrative purposes, etc??? If you cannot do so, then I do not see why every single image has been removed and deleted. I don't want opinions like yesterday, I want cold hard fact and law. Otherwise, what are we disputing? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt insulting anyone. I was just asking if they were having any problems understanding English (which is very probable if s/he is a non-native English speaker). If you didn't notice, just few words later, I made a similar comment regarding my own English skills as well (as even I am not a native English speaker). I never said you were whining. I made a generic comment to everyone, and from the context I think its pretty clear its not used in anyway derogatory. I am not a politician, I apologize if I wasnt politically correct.
As for the screenshots, I never said screenshots cannot be used. I only said these are copyrighted, and their use has to be as sparing as possible. And as far as I can remember, fair use policy says the same thing I believe.
WP:FU says the usage has to be minimal, regardless whether they has a rationale or not. A rationale is not there so that all copyrighted images can be hidden behind it. There has to be sufficient information provided by a copyrighted image to justify inclusion, which is not available without it (it means redundancy is kept as minimum as possible). And I have already said, protection is not endorsement, it was only by chance that Warrens edit was the last before it got protected. --soum talk 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not read your comments clearly and saw them as more than they were. I do apologise. Really.

Lastly, just an update: I have done some research (I'm going into my second year of law school in the UK; thus I'm still a student so cut me some slack). However, I have read that whilst all screenshots are copyright violations per se, fair use allows breaking that rule with sufficient rationale. The images are pretty unique, and have not been obtained illegally (i.e. via a violation of a NDA or through a pirated copy of the software). Surely, they are not intended to cause any financial damage to Apple, and are to demonstrate a unique features that could not be demonstrated using an existing screenshot or through mere text. I do agree about their being some overlap in the content of the images, but that's to be expected since the menu bar, dock, and finder and likely to be visible no matter what one is doing on OS X. Anyhow, my point is maybe this all got a bit carried away? This is a shaky area regardless, and I don't see a bright exclamation point shouting "illegal". I do believe, from what I've read, that the images fall under fair use. Finally, I wish to point pout again that it wasn't until me and another user updated the old time machine, spaces, and ichat pictures which have been on the article since last month (see above in bold for a link to the archive) that this all started, and the prior images were obtained in the same fashion. We should concentrate on making this a better article (which it truly needs) and just move on from this silly picture row. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The images in question were speedily deleted as blatant copyright violations by an administrator uninvolved with this discussion. This will continue to happen until you and User:Kris33 come around to the understanding that blatant copyright violations are not acceptable on Wikipedia, even if you try to justify it with a fair-use rationale. Like it or not, that's how things work at Wikipedia, and if you don't like it, you may as well leave. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia here; work against that goal at your peril. -/- Warren 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, fair use allows one to infringe copyright (as in this case) and still be on the safe side, but you need a pretty strong reason to do so. A boilerplate rationale like used in most other shots is not going to work here. IANAL, but I know a few things about how things work here. Since Leopard is not yet out, some of these images might be possible to be used. Regarding the overlap (which has to be reduced to comply with minimal use of FU images), sure dock and menu bar will be there. but if a screenshot has anything more than that, what extra information does the former provide? Anything different, and you are no more protected by FU and its a speedy deletable copyvio.
The {{Non-free software screenshot}} that you are using is for screenshots that you have taken, not for images saved from a website. There is no standard template for that, you have to use something like {{Non-free allowed in}}. Plus rationales have to be there for each copyrighted element (including desktop background, and screenshot of each open document).
Since there are a lot of ifs involved, its better not to go that way. The simplest would be to mail Apple and ask them to release the images under GFDL or Creative commons, or at least permit use in Wikipedia plus any downstream use.
However, it is ironic that we are trying to defend Apple's copyright when they dont give a damn about ours. --soum talk 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea Warren, I know. But read every word of this post carefully. How come a couple weeks back you added rationale to an image about an unreleased version of Windows that says right in its summary that it was pulled off a website? Image:Neptune Desktop.jpg. Further, you nor that administrator are lawyers, and like it or not the truth is EVERY IMAGE of any OS whether procured from a screen capture or off a website ARE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS, yet they are exempted under Fair Use. You should read the last comment in particular on the administrators board about this actual issue by lucasbfr. Again, you think everything should go the way YOU SEE it, which may not always be the right way. And saying that one image is okay, but 2 or 3 is not is BS. Either the image is against policy or it is not. Nowhere does it say one is okay, but two is not. Policies are simply being made up.

I am satisfied that use of these images in this context offers really compelling reasons (rationale) as there's no other way to get these images without violating law, and under fair use its okay since they are not intended to cause any financial damage to Apple, and are to demonstrate a unique features that could not be demonstrated using an existing screenshot or through mere text. Further, it wasn't until me and another user (not Kris33) updated the old time machine, spaces, and ichat pictures which have been on the article since last month (see above in bold for a link to the archive) that this all started, and the prior images were obtained in the same fashion. Regardless, I will be getting in contact with Apple to try to get assistance and clarification from them regarding this issue. I will make all correspondence with them available to anyone who should request it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I don't want to read all the above, here's the summary - the images are not screenshots, as they were not taken by taking a screenshot. They are images stolen from the Apple website by right-clicking and saving. They are blatant copyright violations, and have all been deleted. Screenshots taken by the uploader are acceptable under fair use criteria; these were not taken by the uploader, rather they were pinched from http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ Neil ╦ 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

From their website: 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. Neil ╦ 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe you should be thorough and do your job and also get the image Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg. I know it was too much to take a minute and read above, but I am getting in contact with Apple to get use of some or all of these images since you felt obliged to create a new definition for screen-shots. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. Neil ╦ 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are screenshots! How do you think the Apple website got them, by whipping them up in Photoshop? Please point me to where in our policies it states that only screenshots taken by the uploader are acceptable. Similarly, do you think people should be forced to scan in album covers themselves, rather than obtaining them off a website? the wub "?!" 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I posted a similar message over at the admin page, but thought it belonged her as well. Overall I am having a big problem with how things are being handled. The screenshot of OS X has been deleted twice now, and not under normal speedy delete policy, but directly by an admin replying about this subject. I'm not saying that's wrong, but not usual. Anyhow, my question is, why is the image Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg valid for fair-use while the Leopard images were not? It's the same deal really, a screenshot from a website of unreleased software and no other alternative exists. I've read all 10 points regarding images in WP:FU and there's not an blatant issue with the Leopard images from those ten points. The only reason I see this being an issue is the policy of no images from websites, however again, the Windows image I'm using as an example was procured in the same exact manner, the difference being Microsoft likely did not give permission to screen-capture their unreleased alpha software, while Apple themselves have provided these screenshots on their site. I am looking for some clarification from someone not directly involved in this already (Warren, Neil) on why one image (the Windows one referenced above) is still on Wikipedia and the others are of Leopard are not. Further, I have contacted Apple about releasing one or more of the images under GFDL or CC, but who knows, and even if we got their permission; would that really change anything (unless of course released under one of the latter two licenses)? Heck, what if I took a screenshot of the open image from my web browser, lol (jk). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Neil is flat out wrong. Uploading a screenshot from a website is usable under fair-use criterion. Uploading a screenshot from the Apple website is OK provided the copyright holder is labelled with a suitable fair-use rationale. - hahnchen 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. This needs to be settled once and for all. We can claim the screenshots from the Apple website under fair use, given justifcation. If these will not suffice, or people protest, we can use images from the Apple “press” section on their website under fair use {{promotional}}. Again, we will need a rationale, and the images will need to be scaled down. Can we come to a conclusion? Max Naylor 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If this image is valid for fair use Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg, then the Leopard images are too. That screenshot was copied off a website as well. Further, at least Apple released the Leopard screenshots, while the site hosting the Windows image doesn't seem to have received any permission from Microsoft to host an image displaying their copy-written OS.Whitneykitty 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Leopard screenshots can qualify as fair use. There really is no argument to be had here, whoever pressed print screen is irrelevant. - hahnchen 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hahnchen, copying one screenshot is generally fine if it's impossible to produce our own screenshots; we can get away with that. Copying five images from a web site into a single article is beyond the realm of acceptibility, however. Part 3A of the non-free content policy is pretty clear about this: Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. We can (and should) provide a reference to Apple's web site so that the user can view galleries of images of things like new iChat features, but we should never copy copyrighted images from a web site to support a single sentence in an article. The screenshot of Windows Neptune supports an entire article, and it easily meets all our fair-use criteria, which is why it has lasted so long in the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that Warren. At no point have I ever questioned this. I'm just stating that screenshots taken from a website can be OK for fair use on Wikipedia, and are not copyright violations. Note that I've already mentioned that a suitable fair-use rationale is included, which in part addresses your concerns. - hahnchen 19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye. Well... User:OriginalGamer just uploaded another Leopard screenshot and hasn't provided a fair-use rationale. I'll notify him on his talk page. -/- Warren 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it was said by yourself (above) one image would be fine, so why not take a minute and provide a proper rationale for the image yourself? You seem to have investigated this issue more thoroughly than us, and that way it will have a proper rationale and there should be no more issues. Just a thought. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah why don't we all spend our time tidying up after other editors who can't be bothered to provide rationales after having been told approximately one hojillion times. AlistairMcMillan 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Discounting that users history, the reason I don't provide a rationale is because of the fact that there was an image up before which had rationales, however it was still deleted. Therefore, and as I said, I think it would be best for someone who has spent a lot of time invesitgating what is and what is not allowed (Warren) to do the rationales so that this issue is resolved. Please read comments carefully before replying to them. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you don't understand fair use claims, then you shouldn't be uploading images and claiming fair use. As far as I can see other editors have explained the problem here; each fair use image has to serve a purpose, multiple similar screenshots aren't needed. Leaving a mess for other editors to clean up is disrespectful of other people's time. AlistairMcMillan 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's been established that we're talking about one image; the current image, and no others. Further it's been established one image is suffcient and within fair use. Wikipedia is a community effort, thus if someone is knowledgeable on something they should take the couple of minutes of their time to resolve the issue. Your statement implies that you're capable and completely understand fair use. Therefore, why don't you stop wasting time arguing over nothing and amend it? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Slight tangent on the subject of amending image uploads. Please note that under "Source" you are supposed to tell people exactly where you got an image from. For example, Image:Leopard Spotlight.jpg. Earlier today I added in the source of that image for you. I tried to find the source of Image:Leopard Menubar.png but failed, perhaps you could add it in for us now. AlistairMcMillan 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trolling? It's proper policy to let me know of legitimate issues with images on my talk page to give me a chance to correct them. I've said over and over again I'm not an expert on images, which you're claiming to be. So why not fix the issues instead of acting like an upset toddler? I think you should re-read the top of this page where it says: assume good faith, to be polite, etc. Now that I'm aware of the issues regarding images I've uploaded I will try my best to address them. However this discussion was about one image on this page. This page is for discussion of this article and not my images. It says so right at the top. However, for some odd reason, instead of assisting to resolve these issues you're doing your best to throw dirt in others faces and are not trying to help at all. So what is your actual deal anyway? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chill out. I did fix the issue with one image, and when I couldn't fix the issue with the other I asked you to. If I could have fixed both I would have done. AlistairMcMillan 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, I followed my own advice and stopped wasting time responding to pointless posts and went and tried to add rationale for the image on this page as requested by Warren, et al. I was going to use the same rationale for an image procured in the same way as this one (i.e. a screenshot saved from a website) -- Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg. However, delightfully, Alistair had already done so. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Er, two delays?

From the article:

"Mac OS X v10.5 has been the subject of two delays. When first discussed in June 2005, Apple CEO Steve Jobs had stated that Apple intends to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was revised to "Spring 2007", and on April 12, 2007, Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."

If his initial estimate was early 2007 and later on it said "Spring 2007", that's not a delay, it's a confirmation. The only delay was the second one to October. --84.86.23.99 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Amended.
Unless of course someone can point to a significant reaction to the initial supposed "delay". If I remember correctly there wasn't one. AlistairMcMillan 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The initial timeframe was “end of 2006 or early 2007 – around the same time Vista ships”. This indicates a winter release. Later it was “spring 2007”. As I see it, this is a delay. --KAMiKAZOW 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Spring 2007 can easily be considered "early 2007." I think some editors are exaggerating the delay (or "delays," they might say) just because Microsoft was late with Vista which they are a fan of. —Tokek 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You're stretching the definition of "early" beyond what most people consider when using the term. When most people hear "early", they don't think April, May or June. They think January, February and perhaps March. Leopard was delayed twice. However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth. (I certainly would've liked Leopard to be out in the Spring because I bought a Mac Pro in July.) -/- Warren 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling that this debate on how to count this would not easily rest. I perceived the phrase "multiple times" (what the article said on 5 October) as usually reserved for occurances of more than two, and sounds exaggerative in this case. An easy route would be to avoid counting where possible in the article description. Not that it matters much anyway: say if the release month was originally announced as January, whether or not it was delayed once or 100 times, it wouldn't change the quantitative fact that as of now it would be a delay of 9 months from the first announced month of January. I guess I counted the delay as occuring once because I originally took the phrase "early 2007" with a grain of salt. I guess there are discrepencies of interpretation when people hear fuzzily worded corporate speak. —Tokek 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "major release"?

I'm not sure I agree with the opening sentence: 'Mac OS X version 10.5 “Leopard” is the name of the upcoming sixth major release of the Mac OS X operating system...'

In standard parlance, a "major release" of a piece of software is supposed to mean that the major version number changes. Going from OS 10 to OS 11 is a major release. Going from 10.4 to 10.5 is a point release. Apple happens to charge their customers money for their point releases, but that isn't the standard for what qualities something as a major release--if it were then free software would be incapable of having "major release" versions. Maybe the confusion here is that it is being referred to as a major release of "OS X" rather than of the Mac OS line. Referring to a minor release as a "major release of a major release" is awfully confusing. Bobbyi 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a little different because of Apple's operating system strategy. Apple going from Tiger to Leopard is like Microsoft going from Windows XP to Vista. Apple typically introduce over 100 features with every 10.x release - thus it would certainly classify as major. These aren't just security patches, they introduce new features and 10.5 will be quite a leap in terms of UI and certain technologies, and full 64-bit support. — Wackymacs 17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bobbyi, OS X versions are such as 10.4.7. Minor releases would be something like moving up to 10.4.8. However, Wackymacs is right; OS X refers to a large branch -- a new/separate type -- of Mac OS. A new operating system, such as 10.4 to 10.5, means you have to buy it; it is a major release; they are only released every few years. Althepal 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Software versioning is very often as much a marketing issue as a technical issue, if not more of a marketing issue. Changing the first component of a version number for a sufficiently large change makes the change stand out, but also might make people a bit afraid of a big change. Microsoft do that, but seem to have given up on emphasizing version numbers, instead going with names such as "XP" (which was a change from 5.0 to 5.1) and "Vista" (which was a change from 5.x to 6.0). Sun originally did that, then when they started speaking of "Solaris" rather than "SunOS" stuck with a major version number of 2 for several releases before dropping the "2." and going back to changing the first (and only) component of the version number. Apple used to change the first component, then, with the switch to OS X, stopped doing that. They didn't go the Sun route (which would be to have Leopard, for example, be "Mac OS X 5"), but they did do something similar to what Microsoft did, by using the code names as marketing names.
I.e., version numbers are just arbitrary tags, stuck on releases for reasons that might have nothing to do with the extent of the code changes in the release. What constitutes a "major" release is somewhat a matter of opinion, and, even given that, a change that some might consider sufficient to make something a major release (e.g., some might think the UI changes in Windows XP make it a major release, and a lot of people might think that the changes between Jaguar and Panther, Panther and Tiger, Tiger and Leopard, etc. make them major releases) doesn't necessarily result in the first component of the version number changing. Guy Harris 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No 64-bit Carbon

I think it should probably be mentioned that Apple has backed out of providing 64-bit frameworks for Carbon.[1]. --Steven Fisher 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be mentioned in the Criticisms section. Apple initially announced that Leopard would support 64-bit Carbon, and apparently had it working in-house, but my understanding was that the decision to remove it at the last minute was made by an Apple marketing exec who wanted developers to use Cocoa instead.

This led to a huge gnashing of teeth on Apple's Carbon-Dev mailing list. Some of the subscribers are urging Carbon developers to submit requests for 64-bit Carbon to Apple's bug report page, in which we explain how lack of 64-bit support in Carbon will be impacting us. MichaelCrawford (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

The two criticisms offered are quite odd to me. The first one (regarding the shadows) while not an opinion I share, is at least a valid one, even though its in beta and things could change. However, about the wallpaper; yes it's fugly, but it's quite idiotic to talk about it in an encyclopaedia since it's generally meant to be changed to what the user wants it to be. The latter is not something integral to the OS which makes it hard to change, thus the decision to directly critcise it in an encylopedia article is lost on me.

However (the real reason I came here): is it still true that Leopard will lock out some 3rd party add-ons, such as Inquisitor for Safari 3? Inquisitor works fine of Safari 3 on Tiger, but not Leopard. Any details on this? I think that could be a true criticism if add-ons are disrupted (permanently).

[edit] Information about update cost?

There should be some information about how much does it cost if one updates from Mac OS X10.4.x to 10.5.

Does anyone even know about how much it would take?

91.153.1.166 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

$129 as has always been the case and $199 for a family pack. As Jobs said, the basic, premium, professional, enterprise and ultimate edition are all $129 (obviously making fun on microsoft (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/115312/apple-reveals-leopards-new-desktop-design.html). I'll add info to the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Can somebody using a recent v10.5 developer release update the screenshot on this article? I know its informative enough, but a more aesthetic and less cluttered looking one would be better for an article. (one like the OS X 10.4 image that shows the finder open, about this mac window, and a spotlight search.. --Alegoo92 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Mac OS X v10.5 is copyrighted, and anyone with access to it is under NDA --Steven Fisher 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Anything in the screenshot up there should at the very least have the new wallpaper as the background, not some user's custom wallpaper because the new look is a feature Apple is making a big deal about. --Duckfootx 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Aanhorn replaced the screenshot we've had for a while with a custom one with some desktop background I've never seen before, a non-default dock size, and Adium. I've reverted this change as it does not accurately depict OS X Leopard. -/- Warren 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The background represents the OS? Apple's whole idea was to make it nicer when users set their desktops as photos. Anyhow, Apply is REALLY over-playing the space theme with the latest background. See http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture4sp9.png -Althepal 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, hang on... you're saying this really is the default background for the latest build? .... I... really don't know what to make of that. Well if someone can produce a screenshot in an acceptable size (1024x768 is good) that represents the default desktop as it appears on first use, and doesn't have any third-party tools visible, then let's get that up. -/- Warren 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the default background is the wet grass. --Duckfootx 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Duckfootx- the latest wallpaper for Mac OS X v10.5 is not the grass- it's a black/pink photo of space Alegoo92 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that really is the latest default background. I guess people didn't like the wet vista/longhorn grass. It does look way too pink for my taste, and I doubt they are going to keep it, but it might as well go up in the article. It only has Apple software running in that screenshot. Althepal 04:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The screenshot of the new build that I removed had Adium in it. It'd also be nice if we could get a screenshot at a lower resolution than 1680x1050... such a high resolution makes the UI elements really hard to make out. -/- Warren 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navel gazing

Should the addition of Wikipedia to the Dictionary app be noted? See [2]. -GnuTurbo 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link help

Are you really sure this link [3] works? Please make sure of it. Regards, User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version numbers

What are we going to do with all those unreleased builds' build info? I'm talking about all the information on the testing version of Mac OS X v10.5, as listed here. I'm thinking that once Leopard officially comes out, this information will no longer be encyclopedic, so we can just delete it and put official, released builds here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Either remove completely, or possibly have a development of Leopard article. It may be redundant to be honest, but it was done for Vista. There's many articles dealing with Vista alone on Wikipedia (main article, development article, criticisms article, versions article, new features article, technical details of new features article, etc etc.) Personally I think the build release history will be of no use once released. Obviously some dates and builds are important, such as the first preview and then the first feature complete build (though these can be put into paragraphs), but aside from that nothing is important. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC).
A big part of the problem with writing a "Development of OS X 10.whatever" article is that Apple is far more secretive about the progress they're making than Microsoft is. Most people who come into contact with Leopard are under fairly strict NDAs, whereas with Vista, you'd get literally dozens of individual bloggers at Microsoft talking about new builds, things to look for & expect, and so on. It's also easy to find reliable, third-party reviews of individual builds. Who knows, maybe the next version of OS X after Leopard will be different. -/- Warren 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh I was about to reply to my own comment saying that I agree, because I had forgotten I wrote it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directory

What about Directory - a application detailed in Leopard.

"Directory" or "Directory Utility"? Both need to be added.Urbin 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Leopard 9A559 Desktop.png

Image:Leopard 9A559 Desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know the exact release date???

Please?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.152.82 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who does is likely to be fired by Teh Steve if they tell you - or is Teh Steve, who I seem to remember having indicated that his ship won't leak from the top. Guy Harris 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone edited the article to say 10/26, but I checked their source, and it doesn't have any mention of an exact release date. Seems like this should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of rumor going around that it's going to be the 26th (see [4]). Worth mentioning? Sloverlord 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoever keeps editing back in that the 26th is the release date, PLEASE STOP. Your source has no mention of this date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What he said. Rumor sites are NOT references. If Apple doesn't announce it, it's not "slated" for any particular date. If you put a date in, point to a PRIMARY source (which means a site in a domain such as "apple.com", not some "AppleSecrets.com" site) that gives the date; don't just leave the old reference in to a page that doesn't give the date. Guy Harris 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML Problems on Firefox, anyone?

Has anyone else noticed that the second paragraph is not being shown properly in Firefox, despite the code being correct, and showing up properly in IE? According to the code, the sentence should read, "According to Apple, Leopard contains over 300 changes and enhancements, though not all are easily apparent from the beta version." However, on the actual page, the entire sentence up to the second last work has disappeared, such that only the last word, "version" is shown. 210.176.70.2 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I see no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.122.238 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date announced

Hey! Someone update this and add the October 26 release date!

-Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshorngod (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody did so a while ago - for a popular topic such as this, it's rather unlikely that you'll have a long wait between a press release and an update - but you could have been bold and done so yourself. Guy Harris 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have revised everything that I saw in the entry to reflect its non beta status.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys think mentioning the delay is still relevant now that there is a release date. At the very least, mention the delay and the reason for it (iPhone development), but any other info is probably irrelevant now. Anyone agree? Vkmitg 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro mentions the 'uptodate' price of $9.95. Maybe this is a bit US centric? The UK equivalent is £5.95. Maybe we could say something like 'Apple will offer a low cost upgrade to...' instead? Komarovsky 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kernel is 32 bit only

I just saw a google tech talk for "Vmware Fusion" by one of the tech leads. It turns out that (previously under NDA) the kernel is only running at 32 bit. I'm confused, how does it run 64 bit applications then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.216.102 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Through a lot of clever hackery (and some small bits of 64-bit code in the x86 kernel, to handle a few things such as saving and restoring the extra 8 registers). :-) That was also true in Tiger, which could run 64-bit apps as long as they didn't use any system libraries other than libSystem (which ruled out all GUI apps). Guy Harris 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Using Intel's 32-bit emulation extensions. The "native" system is 64 bits, but the descriptors for kernel code flip it into 32-bit-emulated mode whenever you're in-kernel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace dock image

There is an image of the dock with "stacks" in the article, but that is from a much older beta (with a slightly different dock), and it doesn't even show the stacks fanning out or anything. Althepal 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll have much better screenshots in a few days, once everybody can get their hands on the final product. Be patient... :-) -/- Warren 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a screenshot of a stack displayed as a fan and a grid (Image:Leopard-stacks-fan-grid.png). The old image is here: Image:LeopardDock.png. Then I made the mistake of reading the discussion above on screenshots: to clarify, I took a screen-shot of my own computer, and uploaded it, so I used the same Non Free/Fair Use tag as the main image on this page. If that's not right, hopefully someone will set me straight. Urbin 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Quite.The Walkin Dude 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now where's the new dock? ;) (Hey, does anyone really know what comes after mac os 10.5?) Althepal 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Mac OS X 10.6, I would say. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. I thought OS X was only going to be for 10 years, and that would give Apple a couple years to make OS 11, but it would be nice if there would be any info out there of what is planned... Still waiting for an updated dock with "stacks"... Althepal 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section

I've taken the criticisms from the above websites... The section is not complete... If possible someone update it... Mugunth 11:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bugs aren't criticisms. A criticism would be something like multiple respected computer publications saying something like, "In Leopard, security has been removed and support has been made for Windows viruses." Not a list of things which don't suit an individual or a bug that hasn't been fixed in this first release of Leopard. Althepal 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that definition is easy to dispute, and that the references Mugunth cited trump the subjective argument you're making. Also: citing those references is hard work; excising them without replacing them with text that puts them in context is not. I'm leaning towards reverting your change. --- tqbf 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Totally disagree. But regardless of your definition of criticisms, these are not criticisms of Mac OS X. They're really bugs in APE. "I replaced random parts of my DVD player with cheddar cheese and now it doesn't work!" wouldn't be a criticism for a DVD player. As such, they could go into the article as compatibility issues, but don't belong as criticisms of Mac OS X 10.5. The one valid criticism you might be able make is that the installer doesn't remove old versions of APE automatically. I don't have the time to rewrite this section, though, so I'm removing it. Steven Fisher 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
So, I agree that APE appears to be the cause, and agree that Apple shouldn't be punished for what Logitech screwed up. That's something that should be noted in the text of the criticism section. It is totally inappropriate to pretend like criticisms we disagree with didn't actually occur --- Leopard was roundly criticized by a variety of citable, notable sources for a variety of reasons. Many of these criticisms are unfair; they can be rebutted (NPOV) with cited sources in the article text. --- tqbf 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please not also: WP:BLP does not apply to an article about an operating system, which is not a living person. It is not appropriate to "remove content that you don't have time to rewrite". Improve the WP; don't erase the things we disagree with.--- tqbf 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is an article on Mac OS X 10.5. Thus, each section is really Section of Mac OS X 10.5. So the Criticisms section is more properly read as Criticisms of Mac OS X 10.5. This thus requires that criticisms in the Criticisms section actually be related to Mac OS X 10.5. The right place for this, if it's considered encyclopedic at all, is the Compatibility section. However, I consider this unencyclopedic junk, and won't put any effort into adding a point I disagree with there. If you want to put in the effort to add it there, great. If not, that's fine too... but it doesn't belong under Criticisms. Steven Fisher 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, man, but the APE thing is most definitely not a valid criticism of Mac OS X. If you want to include this information with the article, fine, but start a new section. We do need a section on the development history, release and reception of OS X. -/- Warren 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not our job to arbitrate all these critiques. WP:NOR! They are critiques of Leopard. They appear in numerous credible citable secondary sources, including PC World, eWeek, and Computer World. I will tend to agree with your takes on these critiques --- but you cannot remove the critiques themselves to make your point. Address the counterpoint in the critique. If you can make a case that the critique is a minority view, your rebuttal of the critique can even carry more weight than the critique. --- tqbf 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The Java criticism doesn't belong because the provided source is a forum posting. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability, and wrap your head around the simple fact of the matter that forum postings don't have any kind of "editorial control", and are thus not suitable as sources in Wikipedia. Ever. Give it some thought... think about the kind of abuse that could occur if we allowed this.
And quit trying to push this inanity that a crash caused by a third-party application is a criticism of Mac OS X itself. It is not; the publications you've quoted don't actually criticise Apple! Application Enhancer is the appropriate article for writing criticism about this product, and, unsurprisingly, the criticism is already written there. -/- Warren 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of removing the "truth vs. verifiability" canard from the debate --- which of the critique sections in the article are currently not true? By "true", I mean the text of the article, not the fundamental validity of the critique. Is anything in the section itself false? --- tqbf 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:V reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ... a discussion about whether criticism is "true" or not has no place on Wikipedia. Step up to the plate with reliable sources that state criticism, or leave the matter alone. -/- Warren 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to believe that you're working in good faith, and actually reading the cites on the page. The critique you've reverted cites NEWS.COM. --- tqbf 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what I'm doing, and I've done the necessary research on the issue. The issue here is that you're not absorbing the main thrust of the point that Sdfisher and I are making: The Unsanity issue is not a criticism. Nobody worth quoting has criticised Apple for this. The news.com article you're pointing to does not criticise Apple. It just says, "hey, there's apparently a problem", and that's about it. I'm going to state this one more time, and I hope you'll get it this time: the source must contain criticism. I've already said once that the information can go elsewhere on the article, but it does not belong in the criticism section. -/- Warren 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a silly semantic argument to say that a trade press article talking about "interminable delays", "problems", "frustrations", "stymied attempts", and "blame" isn't "criticism", just because CNet didn't take a position on the controversy. By your standard, few "criticisms" could ever stay in the Wikipedia, because they only seem to qualify if the mainstream trade press writes an editorial about them. --- tqbf 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for Joe Random Blogger's opinions, whether they're included directly, or written in their blog and then referenced directly here. If the mainstream press picks up on Joe Random Blogger, then we can cite the mainstream press. If, on the other hand, the person with the opinions is notable in their own right, then we can reference them directly in articles. Paul Thurrott and John Gruber and John Siracusa are very well-known commentators in the Apple community. This Michael Urban guy... the only thing I can find about him is that he is (was?) a biology student at the University of Minnesota, and that he's written a book on FreeBSD. This doesn't qualify him to be a source on Wikipedia when it comes to the subject of Mac OS X. -/- Warren 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you didn't address my point. NEWS.COM is not Michael Urban. By your logic, I think we agree that the APE critique should be returned to the article. It's more widely-known than the Java thing. --- tqbf 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you not been paying attention: THAT IS NOT CRITICISM OF MAC OS X. How many times do you need to be told this? This is tiring and your ignorance of the key point is borderlining on offensive, but let's try this again: It's a bug with older versions of a piece of third-party software that, in at least one fairly common case, is installed without the user's knowledge. It's worth mentioning somewhere in the article (a point I've made previously), but it is not criticism. -/- Warren 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this sound civil to you? I'm an OSX dev; I've written OSX kernel code. Anything else we need to say to establish whether I'm ignorant? The press picked this up as a criticism of OS X. Because you are clearly emotionally attached to this issue, I will agree with you that the press is wrong about this critique. But it is, nonetheless, believe it or not, an actual honest to god criticism of Leopard. --- tqbf 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you, tqbf? Do you really have to resort to putting words in my mouth in order to make your point? I didn't at any point say "the press is wrong". A malfunctioning third-party application is not the fault of the operating system! This is proven by the fact that the problem was fixed in later versions of the application. Leopard is, in and of itself, not at fault. -/- Warren 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the difficulty you have with civility. Clearly I understand the point you are making. But you're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge my point. I don't have to agree with a criticism to believe it should be in the article. --- tqbf 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the time you've spent repeatedly telling me that it's not Leopard's fault, you could easily have written a graf for the article that reflected the consensus that this criticism wasn't valid. Instead, by arguing about it incessantly instead of improving the article, you've caused the "criticisms" section of this article to be drastically expanded, and your least favorite parts of it to be extensively sourced. Why don't you want to work with the rest of us on this article? 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs)

I agree with tqbf... The press has picked it up as a Criticism of OS X Leopard... We are here to reflect that and not to question whether that decision made by press was right or wrong.. If we are to make that, we will be violating WP:NOR, as it will consititute OR... Similar to this is the issue of Java and Mac... see this for example

It's not a thread or posting.. It's a news information...

There are always "Fanboys" who try to say "Mac is the best".. but this is not the place to show that off.. may be start a blog instead... We will be writing from a NPOV... Mugunth 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't. You need to pay much more careful attention to the wording and phrasing of those articles -- they pretty much all picked it up as an issue with Leopard, yes, but not a criticism of it. There is an extremely important difference here.... bugs are not automatically criticism. I really strongly recommend you go read Wikipedia's article on criticism, and come to an understanding of what the word actually means.
If you really truly believe that there is criticism involved here, produce quotes from reliable sources who are saying something along the lines of, "Leopard sucks because it crashes in this way". There has to be a value judgement involved. I've checked quite a number of sources, and basically none of them phrase things in a critical fashion like that, and that's the requirement for including this as criticism in the article.
Again -- the information may be included in the article, elsewhere, as it is an important issue related to the operating system. It just isn't criticism.
Also, quit with this bullshit that this has something to do with "fanboys". You're cheapening the discussion by questioning the motivations of your fellow editors. -/- Warren 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


The title of the webpage containing the critic to the bsod was "Apple’s New Leopard OS Faces Criticism Days After Launch" They don't say that it's an issue... It's a criticism faced by leopard which is pointed out by DigitalJournal... I'm not questioning the motivations of other editors.. Please note that, when every other editor wants a Criticism section, you alone removed it completely stating that it's an *issue* and not a *criticism* and that to from your POV. Every editor cited sources properly for added line. When media says it is a criticism.., it is... We editors are not here to question whether the media is right or not. Remember, we follow NOR and go by consensus. For the java criticism, yes.. quoting from a forum post is not reliable... But we found a better reliable source now.. which means it should not be removed here after... Hope I made it clear... and please refrain from using abusive words... as you have used before... Mugunth 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End User Features

Tidied up this section by alphabetising by name of software/feature and making the naming a little more consistent. Probably more to do (splitting Front Row and Photo Booth up, etc), and it's begging for separate articles on Podcast Producer and Back to my Mac.Urbin 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility & system requirements

I note that these sections are, at the moment, almost entirely duplicate. System Requirements is in list form, but Compatibility is in prose form. I suggest one of them be merged with the other. However, that leaves Unix certification not really belonging in the mix. Is the Unix certification a developer feature? Any thoughts? --Steven Fisher 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Java Criticism

I think we can moot the argument about whether this is a "notable" critique; it's been picked up in The Register, InternetNews.com, and VNUNET.COM.

Arguments against?

From a validity standpoint --- and validity doesn't matter in this case, what matters is whether the criticism actually happened, and was notable --- The Java 6 thing has much sharper teeth than the BS APE thing. Apple really did do something to irritate Java devs, even if I don't happen to care about them.

--- tqbf 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about them either (actually, I'm kind of glad they can't impersonate applications anymore). But it's notable and appropriate for inclusion. --Steven Fisher 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue with the Java criticism was its source, not its content. Something a little more detailed than one short sentence would be good, though... for example, why is this an issue? Who is making the criticism? Are there counter-arguments available? Don't force people to go to the references to find out what the heck is going on... -/- Warren 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A SWAG at a rewrite. I'm not married to it. --- tqbf 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that Java updates have historically come out after Mac OS X releases, not with them. The only source I have for this at the moment is this one, which probably isn't notable enough to use. It is linked to from Daring Fireball, though, which might be. I don't know. Steven Fisher 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the counterargument could be better addressed, because it is eventually going to prevail --- modulo WP:CBALL. --- tqbf 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Screen Critique

Warren, I think your time will be better spent rewording this critique than stripping it out, because it's been picked up now in:

  • CNET
  • Information Week
  • CRN
  • PC World
  • The Register

and yes wait for it

  • The Baltimore Sun

--- tqbf 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My viewpoint mirrors Sdfisher's above. This really isn't criticism of Leopard. The problem was with APE, not Leopard. Unsanity has taken responsibility, there is no dispute. I also think the notability of this issue is temporary; it won't matter in say, a month. As stated at WP:N, "...a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." V-train 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You can probably say that about every critique of Leopard; OS releases are somewhat inherently susceptible to this. Do you remember the criticisms of Cheetah?
The consensus view, which I share, is that this criticism is bogus. It's also widely-reported. Let's fix the language --- if we disagree with it --- but I think it's hard to argue at this point that it doesn't belong. --- tqbf 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Image:Public.generic-pc.png — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed beta "Full" ZFS

In the Developer section: "The fully functional (beta quality) zfs.kext is available for download to anyone with a free account at http://developer.apple.com"

This developer-level beta-ware and things like it (for instance all the cool stuff in WebKit built from current code) should not be in the general article about Leopard. I think you would have to find several credible sources than can explain why this beta-ware is important and create a separate section or, more likely, article. --Charles Gaudette 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, you could make the argument that Apple could supply a "beta" ZFS kext for any version of OS X. Nobody is going to use this ZFS kext in production. --- tqbf 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

18 November 2007: "A mostly functional preview read-write implementation of ZFS is available at the Apple developer website, implying that support will be completed in a future patch or upgrade."

Again, this maybe true, might be important, but this is speculation and beta-ware. Can a credible reference be cited please? I know full ZFS exists at the dev site, but why must this be in the general encyclopedia article about Leopard? --Charles Gaudette (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism about security researchers' claims about Leopard's new firewall.

There are numerous articles and level headed discussions online that cast doubt on the credibity of the researchers' analysis. Both logs and sreenshots are provided.

  • [5] original claim
  • [6] discussion on Ars Technica
  • [7] screenshots and counter claim
I wrote this section, along with the majority of the "criticisms" section. I disagree with most of the criticisms in this article, and welcome improvements to make them more balanced. That said: the security criticisms of Leopard I agree strongly with.
You don't need my permission to improve the security criticisms text in this article. But I will ask that you be careful. Some points I hope you keep in mind:
  • There are many more security criticisms in Leopard that go past the firewall; the firewall doesn't even have the majority of the media coverage anymore. The section you're addressing covers all of them.
  • The firewall critique itself has extensive media coverage. We cannot eliminate well-sourced criticisms from the article; they are there forever now. We can, however, rebut them with NPOV counterarguments and well-sourced facts.
  • We cannot inject original research into the article, and we must be careful (though I believe far less careful than WP:RS --- this is not a bio of a living person) to cite the best possible sources --- plenty of Apple-negative material has been shot out of this article for citing discussion group posts.

Thanks for looking into this subject and helping with the article!

--- tqbf 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bluetooth Critique

I agree that the copy written for the Bluetooth critique was imperfect. However:

  • It appears to be true, and is a significant factual criticism of Leopard. I had no idea, but wow, how irritating that they took that feature out! I used it a lot.
  • It is not true that discussion group posts are ineligible as sources for this article. We are again applying the standards of WP:BLP to an article about an operating system. WP:BLP is rigorous to avoid libel. We run no risk of that here.

How can we rewrite this section? With no comments, I'm going to revert it back in and strip out the iPhone thing.

--- tqbf 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Forum postings are not reliable sources, for the simple fact that anyone can log in and start posting whatever nonsense they want. From WP:RS : "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." AlistairMcMillan 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right that it's not a high-quality source. However, it's almost certainly true and verifiable. It is therefore not an exceptional claim. It's a valuable addition to the article. --- tqbf 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Machine criticism

Has anyone taken the time to read Dave Nanian's blog post? All due respect to the guy but he isn't criticising Leopard, he is justifying why people should continue to buy his product. Pointing out the one big feature that his product has that Leopard doesn't. Saying Time Machine is cool but here's a good reason to buy SuperDuper is not criticism. AlistairMcMillan 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to find another source, I do think the information does belong. But clearly that is not a reliable, neutral source. V-train 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in reply to the comment left on my talk page, what "mainstream trade press"? The only people I've seen mention this were linking to and repeating Nanian's comments. And there is no "conflict" here, he basically concludes that Time Machine and SuperDuper have different primary goals, "buy both!!!" AlistairMcMillan 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It took 3 minutes to source this to something besides a blog. I don't disagree with you, Alistair. But please make your point by balancing the text of the critiques, instead of erasing them. The reverts are not improving the quality of the article. --- tqbf 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the help, Alistair! --- tqbf 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We've now sourced the hell out of this critique. Awesome rewrite, Alistair. --- tqbf 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing Critiques

The point of the "Criticisms" section isn't to address all possible criticisms of Leopard. It's to capture the criticisms Leopard actually received from notable sources.

In that context, I think it makes sense to cite as many of them as possible, as long as they originate from notable sources.

Moreover, it's POV to pick one source, eliminate all others, and include mitigating or exculpatory text from the source to rebut the criticism. It's possible that TidBITS is less neutral than other sources; TidBITS also doesn't speak for all the other sources.

I've tried to adjust the text of the critique to reflect this, instead of just larding on more footnotes.

--- tqbf 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Alistair obviously feels more strongly than I do about the InformationWeek thing. He's probably right. However, in the future, I don't think the "this article has nothing new to report" argument is controlling: making the editorial decision to repeat prior claims in print is information and implies a degree of newsworthiness. --- tqbf 20:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, cite the people actually making the statements, not the echo chamber. Let quality be the controlling factor, not quantity. Someone writing for a respected site like TidBITS has so much more credibility than five people who are just saying X said this and Y said that, and likely haven't even used the software in question. AlistairMcMillan 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true when the subject of the section is the content of the critique, but it's not true when the subject of the section is the critique itself. Generally speaking, I'll use repeated cites to back up the words "numerous sources complained that...", and that should put this to rest. I can easily convince myself that the Infoweek revert was an improvement, though. --- tqbf 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Two problems with that. If you want the words "numerous sources" then you should have a source that backs up "numerous sources". You can't just list five, ten or fifteen sources (half of which refer to the same original source) and say that proves "numerous sources".
And most of the articles you are citing aren't complaining, they are just saying "Leopard does A, B and C but it doesn't do D, E or F". That isn't them complaining or criticising. AlistairMcMillan 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that can be a problem, but not that it is automatically a problem. You can judge from the text of the article: if an article states a deficiency of Leopard as a fact, it's an independent critique. It may be repeated, but the repetition in a notable source is itself notable; it implies an editorial decision and (if we're credulous) a degree of fact checking.
I think we take each other's meaning now. I'll be careful not to imply that "roundup" articles don't unjustifiably add weight to critiques. I hope I've communicated my rationale for repeated cites to the same underlying critique, though. --- tqbf 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Java criticism removed, again

Okay, come on people. We've been through this already. Forum postings and blogs from random people are not suitable sources for Wikipedia; this is well-established at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and is NOT CONSIDERED OPTIONAL for all editors contributing to Wikipedia articles.

Here's the paragraph:

Java developer Michael Urban criticized Apple for not including J2SE 6 with Leopard and for shipping a version of Java 5 that he described as "so broken, that some of it is flat out unusable". [8] Eric Burke, another Java developer, pointed out that based on the last two Mac OS X releases, Apple ships major updates to Java as separate updates at the same time as or soon after the operating system release.[9] Also other Java developers such as Adrian Sutton and Ben Galbraith believe that the version of Java shipping with Leopard is "a significant improvement"[10] and "a step forward."[11]

While it's nice that someone's gone to the effort to mention specific people, and the information is generally correct, this paragraph completely fails to pass Wikipedia's policy requirements on citing sources. That's the simple fact of the matter. We had a version a couple of days ago that pointed to mainstream press articles that covered the Java subject -- those are suitable sources for Wikipedia. It won't take much work to improve this paragraph and reintroduce it with correct sources, but until that's done, it doesn't belong in the article.

I'll request the page be protected from editing if anyone fights this. This needs to be done correctly, or not at all. -/- Warren 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was me who changed it from the press links to the blog/forum posts. I made that change because all the "press" (if you can call them that) links were just repeating what Urban said in his forum post. I say we keep it out of the article unless a reliable source comes along. AlistairMcMillan 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to argue with the press (here defined as "articles mainstream trade publications written by professional reporters and managed by professional editors"), rebut them with verifiable, sourced facts. The heading of the section is not "Correct Criticisms". Just because we disagree with them didn't mean they didn't happen.
If we want to revert this back to my version, which cited the press directly, that's fine. But Alistair's version is better and more helpful. --- tqbf 05:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert vs. Edit, Java (this time)

If you don't like what's in the article now, you have three choices:

  1. Clear out what you don't like
  2. Revert to the last acceptable version
  3. Rewrite it

Of the three choices, the first is the least constructive. Please stop doing it.

--- tqbf 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. If you content in the article cannot be suitably cited, it comes out. WP:V AlistairMcMillan 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's now been cited to the mainstream trade press, though your version, which cited the original sources and presented counterarguments, is better. --- tqbf 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Mainstream press who are just repeating the comments from forum and blog posts. AlistairMcMillan 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
When experienced respected members of the Java community are saying Java is "a fine release" in Leopard and the only sources you can find that criticise it are unknown who post to forums or "press" who just repeat the forum postings, doesn't that tell you something? Or are you so desperate to fill the "Criticism" section of the article that you don't really care. AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll walk away rather than edit-war over this right now, but this criticism is going back in the article at some point; it is exactly the same situation as the "blue screen" issue: a probably invalid criticism that saw widespread coverage. This logic you're trying to apply that "anything even traceable to a blog isn't suitable for inclusion in WP" simply does not hold.
Your initial instinct was the right one; the criticism belonged in the article, but the weight of the text should have gone to the verifiable consensus view that the criticism was wrong. --- tqbf 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog, Forum, and Website Cites

There's an argument being made that content from blogs and forums cannot be cited in this article.

This is demonstratively false: WP:WEB.

This argument would preclude WP:BLOG.

Please take the religious arguments elsewhere and judge content on its merits.

--- tqbf 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've been working on Wikipedia for two years, and I have 12,000+ edits to my name across thousands of articles. I have more than twice the number of edits on Windows Vista alone than you have on the entire encyclopedia. Are you really seriously going to try to put forth the argument that I don't know what I'm talking about? Seriously? I have a lot more experience with this than you're going to have anytime in the near future, and I'm telling you, straight out you don't understand.
Citing blogs are allowed in certain specific circumstances, specifically when the blog's author is notable. Some Joe Random Blogger, who nobody's heard of before, doesn't suddenly become a reliable source just because the echo-chamber of tech reporters, eager to report anything they can find on Leopard, pick up on a minor story. As an encyclopedia, we don't care about the opinions of random individuals, even if they do get quoted by the press. You don't become a reliable source because you whine on a forum. We can, however, go to the press and report on the story based on what they say about the situation -- that is a proper application of WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. For example, something like this cio.com article would be a much better starting point for reporting on the criticism than linking to forum postings and random blogs.
There are also well-known people in the Java community like Ben Galbraith who we can cite directly because they are considered experts in the Java community. He was the top-rated speaker at JavaOne 2006, for example. If he has something to say about Java on Mac OS X, it could certainly be included here. -/- Warren 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not care how many edits you have or how long you have been working here. Your edit was nonconstructive and your argument about blogs is not controlling, here or anywhere else. If you'd like to get back into an edit war, I'll make good faith changes to address your arguments until you traipse over 3RR again. You are not going to win an argument over a critique that can be sourced six ways from Sunday to the mainstream trade press. --- tqbf 04:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thomas did you read the WP:WEB or WP:BLOG? One is about how to judge whether websites are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia about them and the other is a WikiProject that aims to write articles about blogs. Neither of them covers the suitable of blogs/forum postings as sources. AlistairMcMillan 14:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Security Feature Counterpoints

I'm expecting this content to be reverted.

The best sourcing I can provide for this content now is problematic:

  • Rich Mogull's blog. [12] Rich Mogull is a notable security expert and a former VP at Gartner.
  • My own blog: [13], [14], [15]. I'm relatively notable in my field, but am horribly uncomfortable defending that statement.

What I can say on behalf of these sources is:

  • They received extensive media coverage (in eWeek, Macworld, InfoWorld, and elsewhere).
  • They are the product of (informally) peer-reviewed research.
  • They are almost certainly correct.

On the other hand, there is a battery of WP-specific arguments that could make justifying these sources really unproductive for us all.

So what I'll say is this: these counterpoints improve the article and provide real insight into the mechanics of Leopard. But they are a sourcing challenge. I'd like to see a way to solve this problem, but understand if we can't --- but if that's where we're at, can someone tell me what could happen in the future that would make this content simpler to include?

--- tqbf 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't provide a single source for your edits. I've removed them all. Consider this yet another reminder to read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, and to adhere to them. -/- Warren 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Another day, another pedantic pessimization of the WP. How about, instead of just mindlessly removing content that makes you uncomfortable, you help build the article? You realize that by your logic, things like the embedded Scheme interpreter in the Seatbelt kext can't be described in the Wikipedia because they're never going to be covered in the press.
Will instruction offsets into shipping binaries suffice for you, Warren, or would the disassembly be a "synthesis" of information, thereby qualifying as WP:OR, thereby requiring a non-blog citation? --- tqbf 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are going to find editing Wikipedia a lot less frustrating if you actually read the guidelines. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AlistairMcMillan 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not frustrated at the reversion, although I'll win any argument about whether the reversion leaves the WP better than it was before. The reversion is fair. What I'm frustrated about is the pedantry, the presumption of bad faith in edits, and the inclination of editors to blank content without comment rather than pitching in and helping with it. Peruse the history of this article and you'll find that for the most part, blanking has been followed up by easy-to-find sourcing. Clearly some editors would rather assert ownership over an article than see it progress.
I'm also not happy about being called names, having my intentions questioned, and being repeatedly informed of how many fewer edits I have to the WP than the people I disagree with.
Finally, the challenge I present to this article still stands. Take the simplest atom of content in the changes Warren reverted (with no content other than a jab): Sandboxing is implemented in the "Seatbelt" kernel extension, which is partially driven by an embedded Scheme interpreter and is built on TrustedBSD. Try to argue that that isn't valuable content for a technical article about Leopard. Now try to source it to something that meets the WP ideology here. --- tqbf 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, please read your own comments before you submit them. Suggesting that I "actually" read the WP policies that I clearly already have read is needlessly uncivil, and an example of what actually is frustrating me. --- tqbf 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be satisfied with reliable sources. My opinion on the content itself doesn't matter... I want to be able to verify that anything written in the encyclopedia comes from somewhere other than a single editor's imagination. That means that I should not have to perform experimentation on my own computer in order to verify the validity of something. Just point me in the direction of peer-reviewed publications that make the claims. If none are available, then let's wait before adding such content. We aren't in a hurry, you know.
That said... I have to point out that comparative analysis of features with other operating systems is something we generally don't do in articles describing the operating system itself. If you want to compare implementations of ASLR, do it in the ASLR article, not here. We went through this earlier this year with User Account Control. Another editor wanted to add in comparisons of UAC with OS X, sudo and other privilege authorization mechanisms. It really doesn't make sense for that information to be holed up in an article about a single implementation, because the coverage can get pretty lop-sided and the article would be better served by focusing on describing the OS in question, not its competitors. So, Comparison of privilege authorization features was created, which serves this topic quite well -- much better than we could ever do in this or another OS feature article. -/- Warren 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Put aside the argument about whether blogs are valid sourcing and, after blanking content which took actual effort to write, help address the problem. Take the simplest, least controversial kernel of information from the revert:
Sandboxing is implemented in the "Seatbelt" kernel extension, which is partially driven by an embedded Scheme interpreter and is built on TrustedBSD.
Assume for the moment, for the sake of argument and to keep the discussion out of IDA Pro that this fact is true.
We understand the problem: this content is hard to verify. Help me come up with some way to source it. It's plainly evident from the binaries that Apple shipped and the source code on OpenDarwin, but then, binaries and source code are plainly evident to me in ways that don't appear to be evident to other editors on this article.
Your argument right now is, "wait until it becomes easier to source". There are plenty of details about Tiger (for instance, 32 bit emulation mode in the Tiger kernel) that are similarly difficult to verify without recourse to blog posts. Why do you assume valuable low-level information about XNU will ever be easy to source?
Hoping for a constructive response. Thanks. --- tqbf 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What to do? --- tqbf 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your take, which seems to be the consensus, on comparative feature review makes sense. I agree.
However, I'm inclined to push the argument that the security features in Leopard are an exception: these features are a prominent marketing reaction to Windows features, on a crucial axis of comparison between Windows and OS X. If Mossberg wasn't writing that people should pick OS X over Windows to avoid malware, I think the story would be different.
I'm not arguing for the play-by-play here, just defending the last sentence of the first graf of the section. Unlike Tiger's features, Leopards are notable because they are a reaction to Win32. --- tqbf 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, don't insert your comments into the middle of mine -- Mediawiki's approach to discussions is annoying enough as it is. Try to keep the talk page in a state that other people can read it and follow the conversation. Thanks.
You know what, we've got a big problem here... you're asking us to trust you and your blog as a reliable source. Like I say on my user page, You are not a reliable source. I don't care if you're an expert; it may help you write better articles, sure, but you may not cite yourself as a source. WP:COS, which is part of WP:NOR, expressly disallows this. If you want to report your findings on Wikipedia, then get them published in a peer-reviewed publication first. Your blog is not such a publication.
I'm going to remove your edits. If you continue to push your own blog as a source on Wikipedia, I'll be left with no choice but to report your actions to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Violations of this nature can get you blocked, so tread carefully. -/- Warren 22:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I'm being asked to trust you over the admins on the RS noticeboard. Read below. Let's see who wins. And sorry about chopping your comment. --- tqbf 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog Sourcing: Precedent:

See here, [16], specifically "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer", referring obviously to User:Piotrus's comment:

My advice is as follows: if the information is not contradicted by more reliable sources, use it with a note that it was published on a blog, and add information about its author, publisher, fact-checking (or lack of thereof), pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (if the extra information blog provies are not very notable, they should be used with caustion). If the information is contradicted by more reliable sources, it should not be used.

I don't give a shit about the contentious stuff (whether Leopard is better/worse, etc), but stripping valid technical information out of a technical article because it can only be sourced to the blogs that discovered the technical information seems unreasonable.

--- tqbf 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a trial balloon, I took the counterpoint with the least possible controversy and the most valuable information. --- tqbf 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Another cite:
If the author has been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the topic in question then it's OK to use on that topic with caution, though it's still preferable to use inherently reliable sources.
User:Will_Beback (another admin) in "Overlawyered" on [17].
I've been published extensively on this topic and others (want cites?). A wikilawyer could say that everything I blog on the topic meets WP:RS. Awesome. WP's policies on blogs are pretty silly. --- tqbf 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
(For what it's worth: I hate that my blog is being cited on WP; I'd love a definition of "verifiable" that admitted "things clearly evident from binaries and source code.) --- tqbf 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are seriously posting links to your own blog as your only "reliable source"? You don't see a conflict of interest here? AlistairMcMillan 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. Doesn't this suck? Best I can say is, it's not controversial: it is TrustedBSD, and it is embedded Scheme, and those facts are notable. I hate that the best we can do given our sourcing guidelines here is to resort to citing my blog.
It's not WP:COI though. What's my conflict? It's just shitty sourcing for something that belongs in the article. --- tqbf 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Want to make me cry? I'm not the only security blog citing this (just the original). Want to glom more crappy sources into the article to justify the "security blogs" thing?
I wish we could just use common sense here and let noncontroversial facts stand until challenged or contradicted by a reliable source. As it stands, none of this is going to be contradicted, because it's awfully hard to argue with a disassembly. --- tqbf 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Normally if you think your own website/blog should be linked in an article you are supposed to mention it on the Talk page and let other editors decide. See Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. AlistairMcMillan 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. And? Obviously this is a case-in-point example, and as far as COI goes, obviously I'd like to lose the cite. --- tqbf 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apple deleting posts on forums

I deleted one of the criticism about apple deleting posts on forums. My guess is that the guy who made that criticism is actually the same guy, Tony Celeste, from Tom's Hardware, who's actually waging a senseless war against apple on his website. I suggest this criticism to be replaced only if additionnal evidence are provided. Other than that, that post seems to be propaganda by some frustrated guy.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01 Data 10 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is sourced to Tom's Hardware, an exceedingly well-known site. Your rationale isn't. You have two choices:
  • Balance the criticism with a well-sourced counterargument
  • Come up with sourcing for your counterargument so compelling and clear that it justifies blanking content off this page.

--- tqbf 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing idea

It would be wise for a separate article to be created simply about OS X pricing. It should be a table showing the prices in all the currencies that it's sold in and of course the family packs and also the server version pricing. It would unclutter this and every single OS X article as there could simoly be a section titled "pricing" with a link to See article: Mac OS X pricing. It sounds quite reasonable and I may work on it myself. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the topic is notable enough for a whole dedicated article. AlistairMcMillan 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm when there's articles such as Windows Vista editions and pricing (the same thing really) and Comparison of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop (is this really that important? lol). Anyhow, I've done the article (Mac OS X pricing), and it took a couple of hours too! Improve upon it please if needed.

Anyhow, if there's an issue with the article itself the table could simply be merged into the main Mac OS X article with a link placed in this article which simply links to the relevant section on the main Mac OS X article. It's just nice to have all the prices right there in one place in a table and not randomly placed in the article itself. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did what I said above, and merged the info from the article I created into the main Mac OS X article and then linked to the relevant section in the intro of this article. I did this due to someone already complaining on my talk page about the merits of the pricing info as an article itself. I pointed out the Windows article to him and he then went and deleted all the pricing from that article and just left summaries of the versions, though I'm sure it will be reverted with a possible war that I'm staying well clear of. Cheers mates. Bedtime. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The Vista pricing scheme is notable. The Leopard pricing scheme is not. --- tqbf 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea of course it is. Either way it doesn't matter as the information is no longer included in an individual article, thus there's nothing to talk about. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Linux/BSD language set unneccessary?

In the Criticism section:

Leopard has been criticised for only offering limited choice of languages - about 20 - in which the interface can be viewed, Apple concentrating on providing only for languages of their most important markets. Rival system Windows is available in numerous languages including many lesser spoken ones; Free and Open Source operating systems - like Linux or the BSD-family free systems (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.) - usually support a multitude of languages.

The last sentence gives me the impression that some Linux/BSD-family distros offer more than 20 languages. (Windows is mentioned because the cited article says it supports more languages than Mac OS.) Is this true? Can someone either provide a reference to a distro that has more than 20 languages for a release or remove/reword the words so that it better relates to the criticism? I don't see the point of mentioning Linux/BSD if it does not support or reject the criticism. --121.45.211.133 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the Linux/BSD part of this statement. -/- Warren 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is bogus anyway; the article cited specifically refers to Catalan, but this is clearly available from the extended list of languages (as are Welsh and Zulu, also mentioned in the article) and a plethora of others. IMO the criticism should be removed or stated to be a misrepresentation... North5 11:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)