Talk:Web operating system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Web operating system has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web operating system article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Calling Webtops 'Operating Systems' abuses the term Operating System

I do think that calling a Webtop, a Operating system is very wrong. There are some Web operating systems such as:

They provide hardware support and typically just a (locked down) Web browser that saves no local data. So users can only use Web services. Hendry 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why these examples only?

  • The original listing of webtops have been cut down to only two entries, excluding numerous others who deserve

attention in the same way, being relevant for the topic. Why? Amikael 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was just about to put the very same note here.. Why not include WinLIKE under examples of Webtops?
    I suppose that WinLIKE isn't a server but some JavaScript and HTML for building a "windowing" web site. This gets to the issue raised by Artw that Web desktop or Webtop should be a separate article, because such an article could be expanded to include both servers and frameworks like WinLIKE. - JohnPritchard 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged from WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system

  • There have been some strong opinions that these three articles should be one, so here's my best effort. Hope you agree. - JohnPritchard 03:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you point me to these strong opinions? --Sleepyhead 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I took deletes for strong opinions.. No?g cheers - JohnPritchard 13:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can take the delet as anything other than a strong opinion that the Web operating Sytem article should have been deleted. Artw 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Doing my best over here, ok? If there's something wrong with this work then please be specific. - JohnPritchard 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Web os of the University of California is a research project aiming at applications running over a network whereas web operating system describe services over the internet

Both are different and merging them has only confused the topic Both demand an individual page due to the technical differences Lksajeev 05:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently web desktops was merged with this?

Because I'm not seeing much of it. What I AM seeing is a recreation of a deleted article. Artw 05:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh yes, see Web operating system#Webtop. This article is so very, very different from the version that was nominated for deletion. You may have not seen the version that was nominated for deletion because there was so much concurrent editing. This merge solves the problems raised by sleepyhead and gazpacho. - JohnPritchard 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The merge "solves" those problems by hiding away the subject of Web Desktops, which had more legitimacy as a subject than Web Operating Systems. It's hard not to see that as you deliberately damaging wikipedia to promote your pet subject. Artw 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey, be nice. I'm doing honest work, here. I don't see why you take this approach. Either it's beyond us here, or there's a legitimate deficit in the article to present itself. The Webtop is a completely different kind of software system from WebOS, and WebOS is clearly distinct from WOS, and both of these are distinct from many others as for example Tim O'Reilly's comments regarding Web Services. This whole soup needs an article, as presented. - JohnPritchard 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

I notice that a lot of references in the article are links to blogs, which Reliable sources specifically disallows except when the blog itself (not the subject of the blog itself) is the subject of the article. I didn't want to pull all those links without getting everyone else on board first, so this is me floating a weather balloon to make sure it won't be disruptive to go ahead and remove them. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course blogs have dubious merit. But some are particularly notable, like Tim O'Reilly. In my own humble opinion they (refs) each merit individual review. - JohnPritchard 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In case it's interesting.. the usual justification for these references would be that (i) they are notable, or (ii) the article does not depend on them critically and they provide interesting or useful illustration. - JohnPritchard 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite right. Notability is applied to articles, not outside sources. Alternatively, you may be thinking of Wikipedia:External links' criteria. For sources used as references, they must not be blogs. Even Tim O'Reilly, when writing in his blog, is assumed by our policy to be speaking his own mind as a person, not as an expert, and so it can't be used as a source except in Tim O'Reilly. See the material on self-published sources in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Ok. WP:RS and Primary source present a variety of information. There's some very strict language in the case of articles relating to the law. I don't think we require such a degree of exactitude because one of the most important aspects of this article is the presentation of popular uses of the term in a well examined order of presentation. The popular dimension of this subject is important because the article will be edited under various POVs regardless. In fact, this may be my principal interest in campaigning for a proper article on the subject, one that reviews its dimensions with care for each and without bias to each of the POV's that have affected the subject: operating system, web page, web desktop, etc.. Each in the wild claims the use of the term web operating system. If we were to cut all of these sources and the information related to them we would later have more edits speaking from popular POVs but without benefit of an orderly and examined presentation of the subject -- as happened in the case of the WebOS article.
In the case of Tim O'Reilly's blog, I find this piece to be not unlike a primary source letter. O'Reilly is involved in the field and writes with the care and study appropriate to the analysis and description of emerging fields (from 2002) as demonstrated by the breadth and depth of his remarks.
A number of other references (including both notable www like youos and blogs) are of the quality of industry magazine articles -- a blur between primary and secondary sources in the sense that it can be hard for an editor to evaluate the writer's actual intimacy with the subject.
It's hard to imagine documenting an analysis of each one, but I'm of the general impression that in many cases their qualities are appropriate to their respective use here.
All of that said, there are a number of references that definitely can be cut. In the set numbered 3 through 10 I think we can cut 5, 8, 9 and 10 without detracting from the reader's benefits. - JohnPritchard 00:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Done - JohnPritchard 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not up-to-date

the history of WebOS is from 1999 to 1999. *g* the last sentence of WebOS is "WebOS launched Hyperoffice, a full office suite, back in 1999." And then ? It has been seven years....-- ExpImptalkcon 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some references are actual papers not just blogs

I have noticed a complaint that there are too many blog references. This might be addressed by spelling out the journal names in the Reference section, for those that are real papers. EdJohnston 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them have been pulled already. The two in there that I still think are sketchy are the Richard MacManus and Tim O'Reilly blog posts. Sure, O'Reilly at least is definitely a notable person in the field of computers, but even then blogs are not considered reliable sources because they boil down to personal opinions that are not subject to any kind of editorial oversight. The rest look fine, even the forum post (since it's the only source for a defunct project's press release). — Saxifrage ✎ 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting off web desktops

Web desktops are clearly a seperate topic and should not be a part of this article. Artw 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. The web desktop article is a very, veyr scant stub at the moment but will most likely grow quickly. Artw 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs meaningful details

  1. No references in History section. A lengthy narrative is given, involving many named individuals, and there is no reference to any printed source or even a peer-reviewed web source. Surely this is all original research.
  2. The list of factors distinctive of WebOSes appear to be standard themes of computer science that have been worked on forever. What about Plan9, CORBA, etc?
  3. The fact that there was a project at Berkeley is noted, but then nothing further is said. Did it succeed? Did it fail? Did the authors move on to other topics? Did they create any open-source software that can be examined?
  4. The article opens with a neologism, 'metacomputing', in the first sentence. What do you bet that 'metacomputing' has the vaguest possible definition and has no meaningful examples? The metacomputing article itself looks like a parody of post-modern thinking. I suggest that the first sentence could be revised to eliminate reference to metacomputing without losing any information content.
  5. A clear article with well-chosen examples might convince people that 'Web operating system' is not just a buzzword or marketing hype.

EdJohnston 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craythur

There is no article for the WebOS "Craythur," (the live link that was there before ran to a redirect for Whisky), so I changed "Craythur" to "Craythur_(operating system)." If someone with more experience has a better idea for a new name, please weigh in. We probably need a disambiguation page, to tell you the truth; I've never started one before, however. --Whiteknox 16:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually create an article? If you can create a meaningful article, which has sources and is notable, we can fix up the name. It's premature to enter it here until the article exists. This review makes it sound like a Wikipedia article on Craythur would be premature. Come back after a number of third-party publications (reliable sources, especially print publications) have commented on its significance. EdJohnston 18:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't give enough context. The link was already there, but the link went to the wrong place. I hadn't actually researched the site; you may be right. --Whiteknox 01:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Web operating systems

Many (perhaps almost all) of these appear to be webtops rather than "web operating systems", and should be removed. Artw 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet operating systems, anyone?

There used to be a red link to Internet operating systems, a term proposed by O'Reilly in 2002 that seems to not have caught on generally. A deliberate red link implies that someone feels an article should be written. Does anyone still think this is desirable? One of my edits undid the red link, but I'll not restore it unless it has support. Some language in the present article seems to think this is a real term with a definite meaning. I'm tempted to take out the whole mention of 'Internet operating systems' unless there are supporters here for O'Reilly's thinking. EdJohnston 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Do these qualify for inclusion ? zoho, google desktop, and edeskonline

210.211.128.112 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WOS Project lacks independent sources

Though the WOS Project gets an entire section here, it lacks a Wikipedia article, and does not appear to be covered by any reliable sources that are independent of the project itself. I suggest that mention of the WOS be removed until such time as outside commentary on its significance can be found. I also suggest removing LiveKiosk and WebOS at Duke University, which are in the same predicament. If anyone can provide independent sources, they are welcome to add them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. The WOS Project should be removed from this article. It is confusing the topic. Ideally, it should be moved out to an independant article for WOS Project, that is if it is notable enough to command a wiki page. We can then have this page link to that article in the see also section. After creating the separate article, we can open up an AfD discussion on the article. Let the AfD decide if it is notable enough. Dhshah (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Before removing, at least one of us should conduct a search for independent sources, since an AfD nominator would be expected to do that anyway. If no sources can be found, then I believe we could go ahead and remove that section from the article without further ado. AfD is often backlogged, so we don't have to give them extra work if no-one shows up here to argue the other side. It is easy enough to restore the section to this article if sources are found later on. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
After doing some google searches, i just found one url which could qualify for independent source. [1]. Although some more google search may yield more sources. But one thing i noticed was that the term Web OS is much more generic term now. It may be that the Web OS project was among the first to coin it, although i cant verify that claim. Considering that Web OS or Web Operating System is now a very generic term, i feel giving so much prominance to only one project as if they own the term is not fair. So i would recommend breaking the Web OS Project out of this article into an independant article. I will start by having the one independant source as the reference and others can start adding sources as they find or if no other sources are found, then they can nominate that article for deletion as per WP:NOTE Dhshah (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section on the WOS Project. If anyone thinks they can find third-party sources for a free-standing Wikipedia article on the WOS Project, they are welcome to try. We could then link to that article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference that DShah found says that Berkeley's WOS project was part of the Berkeley Network of Workstations project. That project seems to have shut down in 1998. So we'd have to go quite far back to find any third-party sources commenting on WOS. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If the project has been shut down, then it does not make sense putting in the effort to establish its notability unless the original editor who added the stuff here is willing to provide more details. I suggest lets put in more efforts in improving this article further. This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to wiki standards. Dhshah (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)