Talk:Operating system advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Baylink's edit problem

Clearly, the wiki engine and Konueror 3 have *major issues* with one another, and I can't see how to revert. If I don't figure it out before then, could someone kindly wipe my butt for me, here? --Baylink 01:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Solaris hardware

The following was removed from Solaris Anti:

Only runs on Sun hardware, which remains expensive for its performance.

\ Wrong. The Solaris™ Operating Environment runs on x86 hardware. --Damian Yerrick

[edit] Jeronimo

The only part of this article that could possibly be in an encyclopedia is the first section, but only if this indeed is a "popular pastime" (apparently...). The rest of the article is not useful at all. Just listing some (random) pros and cons of some operating systems. It would be better to compare the objective properties of these OSes against other on their individual pages. --Jeronimo

Agree, this page could turn users of different OS's against each other and hence become a flamewar between users. Since this is a Wiki, it would have to be _VERY_ accurate and up to date.

[edit] Next/Open Step

I guess no-one uses NeXTStep? --Liftarn

I use OPENSTEP...? --Dysprosia 11:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

":You don't know. Because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The OS exists, so there most certainly exists a user too. --Liftarn

[edit] Lack of references

I could accept the pro & cons section if references were supplied to verify that these opinions are held by people other than the author of this article. Also, it should be more explicitely stated that these are opinions held such-and-such subset of people. If these are opinions held by computer experts writing for wide-distribution magazines they are more relevant, if not more correct, than opinions held by random people ranting on personal websites. --Anonymous

I don't think this affects the thrust of your point, Anon Poster, but actually, there is little or no evidence to demonstrate that the opinion of "computer experts writing for wide-distribution magazines" is worth the paper it's written on. Most of the computer trade press is appalling, and the non-specialist press is worse. As a 25-year veteran of the computer industry, I have to cast my mind way back to recall the days when the English-language trade press was generally decent. I have long since stopped being shocked at the levels of ignorance and incompetence displayed in the computer press, let alone the sheer commercial bias that is imposed from on high as a matter of routine. There are trustworthy sources, most of them on-line, but they are very few and far between. --Tannin 00:42 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
The average geek who edits on Wikipedia would know more about computer technology than the average writer for the average computer magazine. Qualifications and employment positions don't count for much when it comes to competency in the computer industry. --Crusadeonilliteracy 06:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To the two above people: your arguments do not counter the basic point, original research is absolutely forbidden in wikipedia. It is absolutely wrong for people to add what they personally believe (no matter how well researched and reasoned it is) are the pros or cons of any point. Rather instead refrenced, popular, and notable viewpoints should be the ones shown here. Be aware: the temptation is very strong for someone to make up a counter argument to "Balance an argument in the name of NPOV", but if this counter argument was made up by the author himself it is absolutely wrong to put it in.

[edit] Praise

Very nice, succint views of the pro's and cons. While not referenced, these are about as mainstream as all the arguments I've come across one way or the other, and are nicely put without an emotional overtone. After reading this, I think I'll try to get an old 6115 to run Linux now, as soon as a final OS 9 legacy app is ported to OS X. --Kd4ttc 02:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Linux, wheel, root

There is no question that Linux is less secure than traditional Unices. Linux was deliberately designed so that anyone can su to root if they have the root password [1]. In traditional Unices, even *if* you have the root password, you can only su to root if you are in the wheel group. Unless you can convince Stallman to support a wheel group, Linux can never be as secure as a traditional Unix.

Darrien 19:07, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Ok, you have a good point, if in fact no linux distro has the wheel group implemented, and have now backed up the assertion with a source. I believe the above should be noted in the article, or else it is an unsubstantiated (in the article) and potentially very contentious argument.
I really don't see why it should be substantiated in the article, seeing as how nothing else in the article has been. If you want to add a link or write a short explanation, I can't stop you, this is a wiki after all.
But even to leave it the way it is, you need to be sure that no linux has the wheel group implemented or else your statement in the article is still unsupported, unless you have something else.
I have no intention of researching potentially thousands of Linux distributions. I have made my assertation and backed it up with a fact. If you still wish to find a fault with my statement, it is up to you to do so.
The difference is that your point violates NPOV (meaning difference between you needing to back up your point in the article and not)
Why is it that only my point violates the NPOV, while others in the article do not?
I didn't say others do not. But most of the others are at least phrased in the form of "many assert..." and variants of that, instead of claiming absolute fact on a contended point. There are many POV points in the article, and all need to be fixed.
unless the facts backing it up are stated with it.
They are stated here.
And need to be in the article or else the statement as it stands violates NPOV. Besides the lack of the wheel group is one relatively small issue, and using it to declare an entire operating system is less secure due to it is a tenuous argument.
How so?
If you have the root passwd, you can login as root whether you are in the wheel group or not.
In traditional Unices, you can completely disallow root logins, and only allow users to su to root. Is Linux incapable of this security feature too?

No, it's called /etc/securetty. I've added a # on each line with sed :)

And that makes su (and the wheel group) a non factor at that point. Therefore the absence of the wheel group is not the single largest security factor. It is certainly not large enough to make the lack of it cause an entire os to be less secure a priori, and all else being equal, which is what your statment without qualifiers means.

That is absurd. Less is less.
And that the facts you're using to back it up may not even be true.
You don't seem to understand how debates work. I presented a statement, you challenged the validity of my statement, I backed it up. If you still wish to challenge it, then it is up to you to do so. However, I will not accept my statement as invalid if the only evidence you can provide is an obscure Linux distribution. You must consider Linux as a whole, otherwise, I could remove several of the Microsoft points from the article, as they are no longer valid against the newer, NT based kernels. We must still take into account the numerous Windows 9x installations.
You're missing the point. its not about having a better debate, its about having an 'article' that moves closer to NPOV on a contentious topic. I repeat, as it stands in the article, it violates NPOV.
It does not violate the NPOV because it is true. It may or may not be a minor point, but less is less. For example: One pound of lead weighs less than any amount of lead greater than one pound. Whether or not it weighs less by one nanogram, one milligram, one gram, or one ton compared to another block of lead, is irrelevant.
That is what means you need to back it up or stop reverting it. --Taxman 03:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I already have, it is now up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
No, you did nothing to back it up in the article, which if NPOV is important, is the only place that it matters if it is backed up or not. --Taxman 05:26, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Very well, I have done so.
Darrien 07:51, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
Darrien 04:55, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
AFAIK, RedHat Enterprise Server _does_ use a wheel group.
Also, I reallize I should have brought this up here first rather than reverting. Sorry. As a side note, what is Stallman thinking in that essay? Availability of the wheel group does not mean you have to use it. --Taxman 17:07, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 19:03, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
I've changed it to specifically say "GNU su", rather than "Linux" per se. --David Gerard 16:32, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is not at all a flaw in Linux, moreso a flaw of the system. Also, remember that systems that have extra security added (those with RSBAC or SELinux for example) can allow or deny the use of su, wheel group or not.

Am I missing something here? If the 'wheel group' is a list of people who can run 'su', then can't you achieve an identical result with 'chgrp wheel /bin/su', 'chmod g+x,o-x /bin/su'? --Wisq 16:09, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Usage like the original question is exactly why Stallman insists on the usage "GNU/Linux", and for good reason. The Linux kernel doesn't have any of the stuff you mentioned at all. The problem with su is a problem with the GNU version of su, which Linus Torvalds has never modified to the best of my knowledge.
That said, Wisq is on to something, and that is indeed one way to solve the su problem. Another would simply be to port su to GNU/Linux from one of the BSDs. Another would be to grab the source code, change it to only allow a uid change to 0 if the user is in the group with gid 0 (or whatever you want to use for wheel, on FreeBSD and OpenBSD it's 0, I assume NetBSD and DragonFly BSD are the same), and recompile. (This is why having the source code is a good thing; imagine this same problem on Windows, only fixable by a source code change!) --Shawn K. Quinn 04:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The "su" problem is accessible in Windows XP [2]. Any user (even a user in a low-privelege group) can run, or set to run, a program file as the administrator as long as they have access to an administrator's password. This is done using the "run as..." shell extension.

[edit] report on OpenBSD scalability

Darrien, that the report was biased (and I agree) doesn't change that it was used in advocacy. As such, it needs to be listed. Reread NPOV until you get this.

I already have, perhapys you should tell me how I am violating the NPOV?
Deleting an example of advocacy you personally didn't like, rather than e.g. noting its inadequacies. Did you notice the name of the article you were doing this on? This article is not about the facts; it's about the advocacy.
You should also read original research - Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary one.
Please tell me how I am violating this as well.
The bit about how something being true isn't actually enough reason to include it - you need documentation as well.
You claim to have a current Rosegarden running on FreeBSD and insist on it therefore being mentioned. That's more than the developers have managed. --David Gerard 22:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Rosegarden article is acceptable to me as it is now. If you want to discuss it, please do so on its talk page.
(I am far from a Linux advocate. The thing pisses me off mightily (see Talk:XScreenSaver).
What is wrong there?
Please document what makes you think I'm a Linux advocate.) --David Gerard 09:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You remove any reference to "Unix-like" on the grounds that because the developers only support Linux, only Linux should be mentioned.
You are unwilling to compromise, reverting instead of attemping to provide something both of us can agree on.
You claim that because other Unix-like operating systems are less well known, they deserve no mention, even when it is more accurate to do so.
Darrien 22:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If something's developed for Linux and not for other platforms, then it's developed for Linux.
Which I'm keeping in the article.
If it can be cajoled into running on FreeBSD (this typically involves installing a pile of Red Hat RPMs)
I am not changing articles where the application can be emulated on FreeBSD, only when it will natively compile on FreeBSD.
that's nice for the user, but it's not the target platform,
I am not claiming that its target platform is different. I am adding the fact that it runs on platforms other than the one it is targeted to.
It's not a supported platform and to phrase it as if it were would be grossly misleading.
How is something like "It is developed for Linux, but also runs on other Unix-like platforms" misleading?
e.g. Oracle for Linux runs on FreeBSD,
Through emulation, not as a native application.
but listing FreeBSD as a platform would be grossly misleading as if you run it on that you can kiss meaningful support goodbye.
Running a product in emulation mode or on a compatibility layer is pretty much entirely at the user's risk; saying "it runs on" misleadingly implies a greater level of developer support than is the case (usually zero).
See above: I am not changing articles where the application can be emulated on FreeBSD, only when it will natively compile on FreeBSD.
I do not remove any reference to "Unix-like"; I do remove it when the damn software is developed for Linux and not supported by the developers elsewhere.
Why? You are removing relevant information from an encyclopedia.
"X is developed for Linux" does not mislead the reader,
Yes it does. X is not developed for Linux, it is developed for Unix. To say otherwise would be wrong. Linux didn't even exist when X was created.
and does not claim it cannot be run elsewhere.
If it were developed for Linux, what is wrong with noting that it will compile and run on other systems?
--David Gerard 22:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 22:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OS X

I removed this:

With OS X Apple effectively alienated and abandoned many long-time users, and advocates

What is the evidence? It's true that so far only 50% of Mac OS 9.x or earlier users have so far switched, or at least appear to have done, based on installed base numbers. However, to say they've been abandoned is untrue - Mac OS X can run older apps in a compatibility layer - if this had not been provided then yes they could have been said to be "abandoned". Also, who is to say that these users will not move to OS X in the future? Maybe they are waiting for the next hardware upgrade - there is substantial anecdotal evidence for this, especially when the relatively long lifetimes of Mac hardware is considered. The argument FOR this assertion would be if former Mac owners were switching to other OSes instead of OS X, but again there is no evidence for this at this stage. --Graham 02:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could also have mentioned that most key apps from 9.x or earlier are now available in OS X versions, so there is no "abandonment" from that angle either. In fact, I really don't know what "abandon" could possibly mean in this context. Maybe the original author could explain? --Graham 02:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Added the note that legacy application upgrade price was a factor for many users. I've run into this personally, often, especially for users of high-end software. Users don't seem to realize that software vendors depend on continuing upgrade fees to stay in business, and the OSX transition was another opportunity to charge an upgrade fee, regardless of the level of difficulty of porting the application; I'd also argue that with most of the GUI-intensive applications, porting was non-trivial and most likely worth the upgrade fee. On the other hand I've been buying high-priced Microsoft Office upgrades for years, and have rarely gotten much benefit from the new versions aside from continuing compatibility. --user:justfred 10:41 19 Mar 2005
And by the way, added the argument about stolen software. In real-life examples, this is often the reason I find that people choose Windows - more software available to steal from friends. People believe that they have to pay for the hardware but think that the software should be free. Which means they really should be using Linux and OSS but it's easier to just steal commercial software. And easy enough to get away with. --user:justfred

[edit] Non-Apple OS X

Mac OS X does NOT just run on Apples. There are alternatives, based on the PPC arch that will also run it just fine. Also, having less software written for OSX is not really a problem. All the nice apps that run on GNU/Linux distros also work with OSX. Actually, a lot of well-supported FLOSS apps run fine. There are even special repositories. Also, for businesses there's FileMaker Pro and others from the same firm of which I have yet to see a Windows version.

And moreover: you don't buy a mac to run Windows software on it. Just because you know a lot of Windows programs doesn't mean OSX equivalents don't exist.

There are still alternative PPC architectures that run OSX? Please show me which section at Fry's I can buy these. And for me, lack of software is a problem. I love my Mac, but most of the good mapping software doesn't run on it. Jeppeson (aviation charts) doesn't support the Mac. Garmin doesn't. So I can't use my iBook as a moving map in the plane, I have to use a Windows tablet. I blame this on the software companies not making databases that will can be used on other platforms (they don't support Linux either). As far as databases, that's what I do (to pay for flying). And despite how I hate M$ - Access is a damned good product, and a good introduction to "real" SQL. 4D was as well, but it was outrageously expensive. Filemaker is pretty and easy to use, but every time I've tried it it was lacking in SQL features "More filling, less great" so to speak. Of course now I use mysql on OSX so it's less of a problem. And I design my apps to run in a browser and be platform-agnostic (even PHP and mysql will run on Windows, I hear). --user:justfred (P.S. I'm now running WAMP for my development server and it's great.)

[edit] Mac pirated software

Someone else removed this:

"* Less availability of unauthorized software - more pirated software is available for Windows; this is often a consideration for users who intend to steal software from friends."

I still strongly believe that this is one of the "cons" for OSX - and one of the reasons people don't buy it. Many, many people know they have to buy hardware but think it's just fine to steal whatever software they need - Office, Photoshop, etc. etc. - and if they have a buddy with the software, they just saved several hundred dollars. (I would also argue that OSX users have more of a vested interest in having Mac software companies succeed, so tend to steal less because of that, but that's another issue; although conversely some rationalize stealing Microsoft products because they're evil anyhow, etc. etc.). But that said, I'm not going to put it back and get in a war over it since I don't know a reference to back me up. --user:justfred

I would just assume that is a natural consequence of having less software, so doesn't need mentioning. And really, how many people base their decision on solely pirated software? I find that rather difficult to believe- I'd think they'd base it on what they already know, what regular software is available, and what hardware will work with it. --maru 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This only matters to scofflaws, as this type of copying of software isn't allowed by most license agreements. As maru said above, it's really just a consequence of less available (proprietary and shrinkwrapped) software. There is plenty of free software available for MacOS X. --Shawn K. Quinn 02:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ironically...it is much easier to steal Mac based software... just drag and drop.....

[edit] Windows

In the cons section:

  • Feature limitations - what limitations? Specify exactly. There are some things Windows is better at, some it is worse at. All OSes are the same in this regard, therefore they all suffer "feature limitations" in some form or another.
  • Primary applications from Microsoft discourage third-party alternatives, either by their quality, their ability to create lock in, or both - I don't debate lock in, it may well be so, but how is it a con that Microsoft discourages third-party alternatives by creating quality software, as this clearly states?
  • Software may contain spyware, adware or similar, which are often referred to as malware, or "bad software". - Malware can target other OSes. Also, this "con" suggests that Windows is malware. --TPK 10:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree this should be more neutral. However, regarding malware, I think that's a legitimate con - malware COULD target other OSes, but in practice it invariably targets Windows. That makes Windows less attractive as a system; hence, it's a genuine con. --Graham 05:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
how is it a con that Microsoft discourages third-party alternatives by creating quality software, as this clearly states?
You have got to be kidding.
Feature limitations: Yes, Windows is not flexible at all. And they make sure of it in the EULA. Of the 1GB in a clean, fresh install of Windows XP, how many programs can you actually use? And how does it compare to a GNU or BSD system with the same amount of disk space used in a clean, fresh install? And why is it, that all the apps that are written for BSD / GNU need much more porting work for Windows? They all need cygwin, to implement things Windows doesn't have by itself.
And moreover, why is it that for instance users of SuSE, Mandrake or Debian don't need to install extra add-on software that doesnt come with the OS, while almost every single Windows user *needs* extra software that didn't come with the OS?
About primary applications: Everyone who used KDE knows that KMail and Konqueror integrate into their desktop better then Evolution and Epiphany. And vice versa, under Gnome, the latter two are a much better choice. And under Windows, it's basically the same thing. The only difference is that Microsoft is a huge corporate entity, and both Gnome and KDE are not.
Also, this "con" suggests that Windows is malware.
If it can deliberately fail to function with competitive programs (which it can), then yes, some people could classify it as malware, but that's not really the point. Actually, this falls under the consequences of bad security practices.
"how is it a con that Microsoft discourages third-party alternatives by creating quality software, as this clearly states?"
This is the harsh reality of the proprietary software world: software products that are not commercially viable usually do not survive. Thus, as the CEOs of propietary software companies would see it, why bother making a new office suite if it's just going to get steamrolled by Microsoft Office? --Shawn K. Quinn 02:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

How does Windows have vulnerabilities fixed faster but slower fixes for security risks? Is that contradictory or am I missing something? --64.219.252.195 12:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hopelessly NPOV

This article is a mess. I think the arguments should be deleted, they can't be NPOV, because people will constantly change the other sides arguments. --Anonymous

[edit] Appearances

I removed this:

  • Most software makes use of a fairly consistent user interface, easing the process of getting up to speed with a new program (although almost all OSes do this, this is helped by the ubiquity of the Windows OS).

On today's Windows desktop, almost all applications come with their own skinning support. Even MS-Office now has a skin of it's own. Not to mention the anti-spyware beta, MSN Messenger, MSN Explorer, System Recovery, Windows Media Player... And third party apps like Trillian, iTunes & Quicktime, RealPlayer, Norton * and * antivius, WinAmp, the list goes on and on.

As opposed to the major GNU/Linux distributions where they even managed to make KDE and Gnome apps look similar.

You're not serious. Gnome and KDE look very little alike, and are really easy to customize. Other window managers are even more divergent- try comparing blackbox with Enlightenment. --maru 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I *am* serious! Windows has only one shell, and even on Ubuntu, you can install many different desktops/window managers. Thats not fair now, is it? So you can't compare that way. It doesn't say much about the OS except that it's more modular and suitable for very specific needs.
One must note that there are multiple shells for windows [3][4][5], though only one official shell.

Also, I removed this:

  • Largest range of hardware, though all hardware is not guaranteed to work with all other hardware.

Because today's version only run on x86 and some embedded devices. Like if there aren't any other architectures, c'mon! This would be true for NetBSD.

[edit] Longer operating lifetime?

Macintosh machines DO NOT have a longer operating lifetime than x86 boxen.

I've got a PowerMacintosh and a Thinkpad made in the same month. The TP is running XP pretty well, still usuable for web surfing, using OpenOffice, etc

The PowerMacintosh has System 8.6 on it, doesn't even run 9.2.x. No recent software, slow as muck

They have a SHORTER usable lifetime than Intel boxen. --Kiand 21:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which model Power Macintosh? --AlistairMcMillan 22:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very late model Power Macintosh 5400/180, AKA Performa 5400/180. The Thinkpad is an early TP600.
First of all from the get-go, I admit it... I'm an Apple apologist.
According to IBM, the TP 600 has either a 233, 266 or 300 mhz processor. That just scrapes under the minimum requirements for running XP, so I think "running XP pretty well" might be exaggerating a wee bit.
192MB of RAM, 266 processor - takes a while to start but when its going, it runs well. Runs BeOS excellently. --Kiand 10:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OS 9.2 will install on your 5400. It takes a wee bit of work: http://www.os9forever.com/os9helper.html. But then you must have lots of free time waiting for your Thinkpad to respond to mouse clicks or keyboard strikes. :) --AlistairMcMillan 00:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry. Anyway I think the longer lifetime comment is referring to Macs generally lasting longer before some critical hardware failure. You may not have anything interesting to run on them, but they do keep ticking. :) --AlistairMcMillan 00:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It also depends which machines you compare. My gf bought a Dell laptop the same time I bought an iBook in 2001. I still use my iBook daily and have no immediate plans to replace it, she had to get a new machine last year. However, these are only anecdotes, they are not "evidence". I think studies do show a generally longer lifetime for Macs, though I don't have a link to back that up right now. --Graham 01:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but the Dell probably cost a thousand dollars less? I'm comparing price-like with price-like on the 5400/TP600 - both cost around £2000 in Ireland at the time. --Kiand 10:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was cheaper for sure, but not that much cheaper. Specwise I believe they were broadly comparable. The iBook isn't a very expensive machine really (I paid about £1100 GBP IIRC) - maybe you thought I meant the Powerbook? I will admit though that one reason my iBook is still doing daily duty is that I upgraded the hard disk to a more useful capacity, and performed a handy mother board hack that boosted its bus and CPU speed to a point where it will run OS X without effort. Obviously most users would not have done this, and prior to the mod running OS X was a bit trying. --Graham 10:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe the evvidence is anecdotal. For my anecdote, I've used a x86 box for 5 years before upgrading (1998-2003) without trouble. Is there a study saying x86s have a shorter lifespan out there? I ask also because of all the reports of Microsoft having great difficulty in convincing business to upgrade software (and hardware) from Windows NT4, released in 1996 (see Microsoft Monitor.
I run OS9.2 on a lot less (166MHz, 64MB RAM)

My understanding is that most people upgrade their hardware long before it mechanically fails. The reason (as noted above): old hardware doesn't meet the minimum requirements of new software -- but this has nothing to do with whether the hardware is more reliable or not -- just whether developers want to support older machines. (A typical cell phone would probably last 20 years if you replace the battery every couple of years, yet I've been told that people in Japan replace their phones with new ones every 9 months on average). I suspect that Mac owners hold onto their machines longer than Intel owners, and Intel owners upgrade their machines far more often than Mac owners. I would like some reliable reports with actual numbers, rather than anecdotal reports and my suspicions. Would average resale prices tell us anything? --DavidCary 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

[edit] Portability dispute noted

A recent edit by MatthewWilcox added a link that disputes the claim that NetBSD runs on the most architectures. The link is a bit spurious for a few reasons:

  • the link is to the "linux kernel monkey log" clearly a biased site and clearly not an independently verified, reliable one.
  • the claim it makes is not based on any count of the architectures
  • a quick count of the architectures on the linked pages with a very generous counting of the linux architectures gives Linux 46 while a straight count of the NetBSD site shows 55.
  • No attempt is made to reconcile the difficulty of counting the architectures. What is considered a different architecture? The count of 46 for linux above includes 11 for MIPS, one for every MIPS processor number listed while they would be difficult to be considered all different architectures. Many of the listed NetBSD ports support quite a number of different processor models also. Even then, it is possible that Linux does support more architectures under some definition of that word, but the linked article does only a very poor job of supporting that claim.

I didn't want to be rude and revert the edit, but unless we have a better source for the dispute, it should be taken out. --Taxman 21:14, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me a message about this. I started writing a web page about the dispute but got bogged down in other things. This prompted me to finish the first section (comparison by processor family).
I don't think the dispute is really discussed anywhere as it's not a terribly important reason to choose one OS over another. But the claim by NetBSD advocates that it's most portable is not clearly a fact. The page history shows someone reverting a note that Linux had outported NetBSD, so I decided to be neutral and merely note that it was disputed.
Do you think it's worth an article on Wikipedia in its own right? I'm perfectly happy to engage in a discussion about this here if you prefer. --MatthewWilcox 22:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it's worth a separate article in its own right on wikipedia, but possibly valuable on the linux or NetBSD pages themselves. Others may disagree of course. But I do strongly feel it should have a quality source or not be included. Then again almost everything on this page would be removed if we held that standard. Your page, now that I see it is much better than the one linked to, but (and no offense meant) is also far from an independently verified source. Have you had someone knowledgeable about NetBSD look over your page? From the little I know the claim NetBSD has is that is is much better organized towards portability. In other words it is easier to port to a new architecture. I could be wrong, but I understand it is much more work to port linux to a new architecture, because it is not organized to make that task easier. --Taxman 00:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
There is a clear difference between "brute force ported" and "portability", the NetBSD codebase is known for its portability, that is, the record time it takes to port to a new architecture without much effort... It is not surprising (and I won't debate on this) to see Linux get ported more widely, considering its high popularity and the number of users and programmers using it, IMO

[edit] Market share percentages

I think the Windows (90%) one is correct, but I think that MacOSX is at 10% is an overestimate, especially since I saw a reliable report recently that said by mid-2005 Linux would rise to over 5% and surpass Macs in marketshare, which wouldn't this mean that Macs are on the verge of dipping below 5%? And YES, I know I'm being picky and pouring salt on open sores but.... --naryathegreat 03:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree regarding Macs. Regarding Windows I would say this page is not impartial since it says windows own 90% of the desktop market, but does not say that Linux owns the server market by large! (Red hat alone own 50% of the web server market).

[edit] vfd

This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Operating system advocacy. --Joyous 18:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

And just to continue this discussion, I think this is a good opprotunity to try for NPOV anyhow. I know my platform biases; but I also know the arguments against them. I believe I can write from NPOV of the generally accepted advantages and disadvantages of systems that I know well (specifically in this case, Mac). But this is also why I tend to include comments explaining the edit/note if necessary. I don't like to fan flame wars but at the same time misinformation or lack of information bothers me more than admittedly biased information. --user:justfred

[edit] IBM XenixI, MS XenixII, SCO XenixIII, SCO Unix/Open server, AT&T Unix && Univel && Novell Unixware 1,2 && SCO Unixware 7

I am thinking about adding some content here over the next month.... suspect this (might be) kind of info is sensitive in light of SCO's dirt position in the market I should at least say hi to you guys before I start. For the record I use FC2 daily, but have some SCO Unixware kicking around. It's not bad for 1998 technology. Any hints before I start? I'll give a good read of all your posting to make sure I fit historical in with current, and posted in with unposted. Cheers... --user:NevilleDNZ

Well, consider whether they are still alive- I think it is a reasonable criterion to limit the list to only those OS's which are still viable. I'm afraid I've never heard of any of those, but your comment about 'not bad for 1998' makes me wonder whether the OS's are still being worked on. --maru 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Could be either" sections

I find the "Could be either" sections make the information less accessable compared to simple pro/con structure. They also seem poorly written: in "which Windows and Macintosh GUI users may find cumbersome", naming GUI users' OSs seems irrelevant, suggesting that they may have trouble on the basis of their previous OS seems to break NPOV. I propose that these two sections be split into: Pros: Text file and CLI application based configuration allow settings to be changed more easily and without requiring a GUI to be loaded. Cons: The primary means of configuration, text files and CLI applications, is unintuitive, although GUI configuration tools are often avaliable.

Im new to wiki, is it better that I open my proposal to discussion before editing a controversial topic like this, or is the perferred method to just edit now and justify it later if required?

[edit] Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) argument

The argument seen in "Cons" section of most of the articles is actually MS FUD and has no actual objectivity. Of course, if your company needs to always resort to external support for software, it's probably best to choose a commercial UNIX or to use MS products.

If you have a technical staff which can handle in-house management, using a free Operating System is always a win. Often, such a "technical staff" can be a single sysadmin who has a clue.

I'm not going to myself add rants about this or to remove those lines, but are such claims obviously senseless to most of you as well?

[edit] Request for Cleanup -- MS Windows section

Every other section has been divided into pros and cons, but in this section, arguments for and against Windows are confusingly intermingled. It would be nice if this was structurally similar to the other OS sections. --Phiwum 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevance to the topic of the article

Should I note here that nearly everything in this article after the TOC has less to do with the concept and history of "Operating System Advocacy" than it has to do with the pros and cons of selecting specific operating systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.211.149 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-31 11:06:53 UTC.

[edit] afd closed

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus, default to keep 70%+/- to keep.

[edit] Expansion

I've cleaned up this article a bit but it needs more content about advocacy (not actual advocacy). I know at least the Linux, Amiga and Mac communities have been famous for their advocacy, so there must be a good bit to say there... anyone who was involved in any of these communities want to write neutrally about advocacy: perhaps any (in)famous events, what form the advocacy tended to take, some notable personages or discussions or forums, anything else? NicM 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Who Stole the Article?

Where did all the good stuff go? It was fun reading about the pros and cons of each OS, according to the different factions. Now it's just devoid of almost any information whatsoever, and only covers OS/2!

MSTCrow 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any stuff about the pros and cons of each OS, at least when I started editing it, so it must have been removed before. In any case, the place for that is Comparison of operating systems. NicM 08:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC).
I'm actually happy that the previous content is gone. The wars seemed endless and most of the content was very redundant. It's best to explain what advocacy is, and to provide links for people to research about the operating systems of their choice. This is advocacy afterall, which isn't exactly a good place for technical documentation. It's for propaganda. So to avoid posting propaganda for every operating system on this article, it's best to instead post links to where to find some for each of them, IMO, and leave the advocacy wars happen on the proper forums/lists, where they belong. --66.11.179.30 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've cut down your content a little, I think the article should stay away from either turning into a link repository, or set of advertisements. If there is something specific to say about the form of operating advocacy (eg, the official "powered by" logo and advocacy material is interesting, although it would be more interesting if it mentioned where the idea came from :-), that should go in, but the fact that they sell CDs is not really advocacy at all. Now, an argument could be made that the Ubuntu we'll-post-you-a-free-cd thing is a form of advocacy, but the fact that NetBSD have a shop isn't. NicM 10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
The reason why I thought that the store was relevant was that the items consist of shirts and backpacks with logos, so it seemed to also be for advocacy (main page of the store currently seems under maintenance and out of order, though). If you still feel that it doesn't belong on the article that's fine with me. The blogs seemed relevant to me because people tracking news on them are generally also involved in advocacy, but then again this is only the way I see it, it might be considered unapropriate :) In any case, it appears that the links the references are now pointing to are confusingly named (possibly that a more explicit description should be given for each link)... For instance, "here is the mailing list" is confusing, especially when there will be other OSs in the future and the links are all packed up together. I'll leave that for you to fix however, if you agree that there is confusion. Thanks --66.11.179.30 08:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I would see the OS sections as being notable information about the form of advocacy, which means not actual advocacy, and not merely a list of links to places where the community performs advocacy (WP:NOT link repository). If there is something interesting about the shop (was it the first of its kind? when was it established? is it notable beyond the shops all the other OSS OSs run? Might it be better mentioning shops in general terms in the "advocacy forums" section?). Regarding blogs, I expect lots of advocacy organises around blogs, which may make it worth mentioning in general terms in the "advocacy forums" section, but in this case unless if there is something significant to say it does not seem worth just, well, saying there are blogs, everything has blogs nowadays... did a well-known advocacy compaign begin after something appeared on a blog? is NetBSD's advocacy centered around blogs in a way no other OSs is? The forums section really needs to talk about this to justify a mention in the OS sections, maybe I'll do that sometime. NicM 08:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] There should be info on the Macintosh and Windows.

Given that Apple has such a loyal userbase, and Mac users are huge advocates of their OS, I'm sure there should be a section on Macs. And Windows, despite all its problems, still has about 90% market share, so I'm sure it has advocates. I know a friend who strongly advocates Microsoft products. Although I use Windows, I'd like to get a Mac at the end of the year. I wish my favourite company - Google - would develop an OS to beat M$. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should. You may find some of the material in Apple evangelist useful. NicM 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
Indeed, I support a merger of the Apple evangelist article into this one. Janizary 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that doesn't make sense. Long ago this article was filled with comparisons between operating systems; that content was moved there. Apple evangelism is a cause unto itself which might bear mentioning here, but merging the articles, not so much. Feel free to throw a pointer or a paragraph for each into the "Advocacy and specific operating systems" section.--Justfred 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Semipornographic image

This image is not approrpiate for this article. Yes, I understand that the woman has pengiuns painted on her. It still doesn't belong here. If you disagree, please explain.--Justfred 23:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way isn't it appropriate? That it's pornographic? That it isn't relevant to this article? Mdwh 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Both. A picture of a trade show "booth babe" has little to do with OS advocacy. And as this article doesn't require nudity (unlike, say, indecent exposure) the image is unnecessary. Frankly the image itself doesn't bother me that much (although I'm certain it might bother women who end up looking at this page), but the fact that it has no relevance here does. There are plenty of places for porn on the internet. Reference pages like these aren't it.--Justfred 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you blind then? Or perhaps hard of reading? Did you not notice that the SuSE Linux advocacy image is sitting right next to the Linux section of the advocacy descriptions? It says, "SuSE," right on her. A picture of someone advocating an operating system is somehow irrelevent to the operating system advocacy article? I am returning the image, since your arguement amount to nosense combined with fear of painted tits. If this was a picture of a woman's ass that said, "Windows," on it and of a dildo with, "Linux," on it and the two were interacting, sure, I'd call that pornographic - but a tit? No, that is about as pornographic as a foot. Janizary 01:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The image a rather dedicated OS advocate making it a great illustration on the subject. Naked women aren't automatically pornographic. Keep. Arru 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust the intentions behind removing this image, but I'm suspicious of the intentions for including it, as well. — Philwelch t 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh give me a break; I am neither blind nor "hard of reading". This image is included because you want an excuse to show pictures of tits. "Naked women aren't automatically pornographic." you are correct - but in this context, simple exploitation, they are; any I would debate that this woman is an OS advocate; she's trade show decoration, and this is not relevant to the article. My intentions behind removing it were to clean up the article and make it presentable and not just some young geek's booth babe fantasy. I will continue to remove it because it does not belong here; if you continue to replace it we'll have to let someone else decide.--Justfred 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person to be taking issue with this image, it would appear that everyone else has decided - you just don't like the majority's opinion. If you want to improve the article then get to work, but don't just dink around. The fact of the matter is that this image is directly related to the subject at hand and you don't like the picture. Janizary 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed this image when it was first placed here in April; it is not appropriate for this article. It might be appropriate for the body painting article - and in fact it's there. But according to your talk page, you're argumentative; you'll probably put it right back. I've been working on this article for years, and this image has recently been placed here. "No, that is about as pornographic as a foot." You're welcome to put a picture of a foot painted with Linux advocacy. My edits are not vandalism; but you're welcome to have an editor make that call.--Justfred 05:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the woman isn't personally a Linux adovcate, I'd say this still comes under OS advocacy, "the practice of attempting to increase the awareness and improve the perception of a computer operating system." And whilst I too question the motivations for including this image, I disagree it is pornographic.Mdwh 12:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Fred. The image is gratuitous. — Philwelch t 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred didn't say it was gratuitous, he said it doesn't belong because it is both pornographic and irrelevant to the topic - both of which are entirely false. There is nothing pornographic about the image and it directly relates to the paragraph it was set with. I could care less about if the image is in good taste, since taste is not a matter for us to debate, because like assholes, everyone's opinion of what is in good taste is quite different. What is in debate is that the given reason for the image's removal is entirely false and that without a valid reason for it, the image should not be removed. The Wikipedia is not censored, so why does an image directly related to the subject need to be removed from an article if it happens to contain black and white breasts? Janizary 07:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The woman in the picture might be a paid "booth babe" - but given the amount of money that (does not) circulate in the Linux community this is not a reasonable assumption. It is also not reasonable to assume that because she is a woman she took part in the promotion just for cold cash, not for an interest in Linux. I'm sure some of the editors here want the picture mostly because of showing tits, I don't, as I said above I think it's a great illustration of the subject (zealotry of OS advocates) with this woman doing the somewhat demanding bodypaint act to advocate a free operating system. Arru 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is gratuitous and unncecessary. The article is better without it. Wikipedia's vandalism page specifically mentions "inappropriate pictures"; I know you're pretending you think it's appropriate but I think it isn't. I think it's reasonable to assume that others will be offended by it - if you posted this as a poster in a workplace you would risk being accused of sexual harassment. It is not clear whether the woman was advocating or advertising - or even if the photo was taken and/or used on the internet with her permission. You could make the same point, if you really needed to, by showing someone with Unix logos on their face, but you insist on reposting this. Finally, you refuse to even consider my point of view by continuing to argue about this. So if you want to ruin Wikipedia by making it your own junk porn site hopefully somceone else will try to stop you because I give up.--Justfred 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, do you have a photo of someone with Unix logos on their face? Replacing it with another image is one thing, but currently you're just removing it altogether. Yes, Wikipedia says "inappropriate pictures", but obviously whether it is inappropriate is what is being debated. Useful reading: Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Profanity. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, so that shouldn't be something we have to worry about - Wikipedia is not "a poster in a workplace". Different people find different things offensive - e.g., would you have the same objections to a topless man?
I'm not sure what "you refuse to even consider my point of view by continuing to argue about this" - clearly, if someone wasn't even considering your point of view, we'd just revert and wouldn't bother arguing. It seems that people are certainly considering your point of view, it's just that they disagree. Mdwh 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your point of view has been considered. Given how obviously appropriate for the subject this picture is, I take it that by "inappropriate" you mean just "dirty". But I, together with several other editors apparently do not agree. The picture is not only appropriate for illustrating the subject the image is not only that, it's near perfect. It shows a person promoting an operating system with a high level of dedication - I myself had never imagined Linux promotion of this kind taking place, until I saw this picture.
As for the permission argument, we do not know but what suggests she did not give her permission? Is that really the issue here? Wikipedia is uncensored, attempts to present the world as it is, and hence won't be "safe for work". Arru 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the image is rather charming, a good example of body painting as promotion, and the article is certainly better with it. It isn't pornographic and isn't exploitative, I strongly doubt the woman in the photo didn't agree to it being taken or shown on Wikipedia (although perhaps someone may want to confirm this with the uploader?) and although I must admit it did not occur to me the woman may have been being paid until someone mentioned it, that is only a possibility, and even if it is the case, why does it make any difference? If we need a picture to demonstrate body painting or Linux advocacy, this good one shouldn't be dismissed in favour of nothing or an inferior picture for purely prudish reasons. Particularly from someone who equates arguing against his position as refusing to even consider it and is far too quick to imply everyone who likes the photo is a voyeur or simple-minded. NicM 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Do we even know if this woman is (a) just another fanatical Linux user or (b) part of some Linux vendor's paid promotion? If we don't know for certain that it is (a), then it really doesn't fit into the article--this is "operating system advocacy", not "marketing promotions by operating system vendors", which is why the article doesn't have (for instance) a fair use image of Apple's "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" guys. Let's be honest here. The only reason this image is included in the article is because it has boobies. No, Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also doesn't contain gratuitious pictures of body-painted women for the sake of titillating 13 year old boys. — Philwelch t 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Apart from the point that Apple's recent campaign won't upset readers with restrictive moral standards (it does upset many PC users though), I don't see what would improve according to the above reasoning. The Apple imagery no doubt is an example of (b) - it's ehm...commissioned by Apple you know. The picture stays because it's a crystal-clear illustration of personal Linux advocacy. If people want porn from the net that bad I'm sure they know of better ways to get "better" porn. Arru 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignoring your rather immature obsession with her breasts, the woman is, paid or not, demonstrating advocacy of an operating system. An image of an Apple advertisement would be perfectly fine so long as it exemplifies something mentioned in the text. Perhaps you would care to improve the article by writing a paragraph on Apple advocacy, including the community reaction to their advertising campaigns? NicM 02:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Or perhaps you would instead care to suggest a suitable replacement image? NicM 02:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

While I do sort of agree with the idea that the practice is gratuitous, the image is a fair representation of exactly how far some advocacy can go. Unless you have a better, free image, it can fairly stay. Also, Fred, attempting to circumvent consensus on an article page via the village pump is generally not appreciated. --tjstrf 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to get an outside opinion, and I obviously still STRONGLY believe this image should be removed from the article. I will be taking this to moderation next.--Justfred 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Your personal beliefs do not override consensus. Also, the precedent here is that we basically don't care if we offend a minority of viewers. The mohammed cartoons controversy basically decided that for us. --tjstrf 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Submitted for moderation.--Justfred 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Where? --tjstrf 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-24 Operating System Advocacy (not sure how to make a link to it).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfred (talk • contribs)
Here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-24 Operating System Advocacy. Mdwh 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And rather than continue the Pump discussion, here it is:

Operating System advocacy contains what I (and at least one other editor) consider to be a gratuitous inappropriate image of a woman being body-painted. The same image is appropriate on the Body painting page. I am sensitive to, as well as strongly opposed to sexual harassment so I have a hard time being objective here. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored and I've also read the referenced Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and Wikipedia:Profanity, and I don't think any of them apply. This is an article about computer operating systems, and I don't think the image is necessary, encyclopedic, or relevant. I also believe that if anything it represents "Advertising" not "Advocacy", and based on the picture I have some question as to whether it's consensual (the model is not posing, but rather shown "candid" while still being painted; the image was taken from some foreign-language Wiki.) Unfortunately other editors on the page think the image is "rather charming" and illustrates a Linux user advocating. Since the talk page hasn't resolved anything and instead just makes me madder, I'm looking for some outside opinions. Thanks for assistance.--Justfred 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The image does represent advocacy, since the article is about promotion which is not conducted by the company itself but rather fans of the company, and the fact that someone would have themselves painted into a mascot is a clear example of advocacy. Whether it is the best image one could use is another question entirely. I also don't understand what sexual harassment has to do with this, unless they forced her to get painted up like that. --tjstrf 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think the person is an actual user - and there's no way of knowing. I don't think body painting is a common, or even uncommon, method of promoting an operating system - I think they found one example that was probably from a trade show; I don't think there are a lot of other images of people with OS logos painted on themselves for fun because it simply isn't done - that's not how OS advocacy works. I think that showing images like this is, with no context, is objectification, constitutes sexual harassment of Wiki users, and is wrong. If anyone can find or show other images that don't involve nudity, that would be fine (but as I said unlikely because this isn't really OS advocacy), but the nudity in this context is not necessary to the content of the article.--Justfred 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
not sure if anyone suggested that, but when channels and magazines want to show something but they think it's offensive, they sometimes hide the offensive parts and still show it. --fs 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be an even more direct breach of the no censorship principle. --tjstrf 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that picture. The girl was obviously not coerced into the body painting and wether she is an actual user is beside the point. Wikipedia is not censored and there are much more obvious nude pictures in other articles. ViridaeTalk 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I just don't understand why it's necessary. The picture does not shock or disgust me; I just don't see what it adds to the article and I don't understand why it's defended so strongly. And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting - what they've reminded me is how many computer advocates have a different sense of what is and is not appropriate - often to the detriment of their cause. Wikipedia is not a boys' club, with pictures of naked chicks on the walls. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - a reference work. Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie - and the fact that the proponents of this picture haven't been able to produce a suitable non-nude alternative illustrates that. I would be far more apt to believe that people get OS tattoos than that they body paint; I know I've seen these at least. I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does.--Justfred 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting I don't know whats more convincing than a photo of it happening... ViridaeTalk 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to single out why the picture bothers you, because so far you've been going through a plethora of reasons for the picture to be removed. With no alternatives it is hard to say how good this picture is in the context, I think it could be one of the best possible ways of catching advocacy on a photo. Advocacy is an extreme thing (at least to people outside computing circles). Replacing it with a run-of-the-mill geek (note: no gender specified) with a SUSE T-shirt doing the thumbs up would be a step down, I'm convinced. If there was a different picture capturing the zealousness just as good, nudity is something one perhaps would like to avoid here. But it's the last concern, Wikipedia is not censored. Arru 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, where is the _advocacy_ ?? The subject of the article? There's a body with SUSE logos. How is this advocacy, and not advertising - SUSE is a commercial product. A tattoo - that very well might be advocacy.--Justfred 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie" Really? I thought photographic proof was considered sufficient evidence for most people... or do you intend to claim it's a photoshop job? Also, he submitted this for mediation, here. --tjstrf 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Greetings, I'm here to offer my services in this MedCab case.

Some notes about myself:

  • I'm a technical support person who has dealt with various OS's supporting a variety of OEM computers and peripherals.
  • I do not advocate one OS over another, as I see all of them as having strengths and weaknesses.
  • I prefer that no changes to the disputed component, in this case the image of the bodypainted woman, be made without full discussion. Once concensus or compromise has been achieved, I will perform the edit. This way, it is something that has been agreed upon and should not be reverted.

If any of you require private communication with me during this case, I may be contacted via email or IRC. If anyone involved is not comfortable contributing to this discussion publicly, let me know and we can work around that.

Be aware that I am currently at work, and cannot respond to email (sent to my primary email account linked in my profile) or IRC requests at this time. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to keep the article talk page free for use in discussing the article itself, I'm going to create a subpage of my personal talk page for use in the mediation of this MedCab case. [6] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved.--Justfred 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. I put a proposal on my subpage that should be reviewed and commented on. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this mediation still active? If not, I will close the case. --Ideogram 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slang

I think there is used too much slang in this article. For example 'flame-worthy' or 'bashing'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.122.147 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)