Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 1 April 2007

Archives

1

Linux Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

I've just archived the talk page, as it was 182KB - much over the recommended maximum of 32KB. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:49 15/12/2006 (UTC)

Firefox Speed

The Firefox speed section uses references to very old benchmarks on old equipment. The Softpedia uses Firefox and Swiftfox 1.5. The Softpedia page was made on 30th of November 2005. The Browser Speed Tests are based on Firefox 1.0 and Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 beta versions. The site is also a private site listing the findings of only one person with no editorial oversight and is therefore not a creditable source per its home page. APC magazine is also based on Firefox 1.5.0.6 a very old build. If we cant find information on the 2.0 version from a reliable source the section needs to be removed IMHO. Secondly we do not need Firefox benchmarks on the Swiftfox page. Comparing the speed of Firefox vs Swiftfox is something that needs to be done on a article we link to. Doing this here is original research . This page is also about Swiftfox, not the short comings of Firefox IMHO. Kilz 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the age of the tests and the credentials of their author make this info suspect. Otoh, I disagree that this is inappropriate info in this article. If perceived or actual speed issues in firefox led to the development of this project, then info about these issues and the extent to which they are corrected is among the most relevant info on the page. I recommend replacing the relevance tag with an "out of date" warning, to push for more reliable sources. Thomas B 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no citation regarding why Swiftfox was created. I placed a request for that citation awhile back. As it is now we cant prove why it was created Kilz 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas B. They are relevant. They are not perfect, but if you know better speed tests then please replace. Please comment here if you also consider the relevancy tag needs removing now that it has an additional warning. Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE relevance tag - Y Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas B said that they should stay if it is shown that it was relevant to the creation of the application. We have no proof from creditable sources why Swiftfox was created.Kilz 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can read the above and decide for themselves. I wish to gain consensus on this Kilz and move on. Please leave space here for others to comment, as is the process. Widefox 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the reference 12 is the same one used in the main article Firefox which is a Star rated article. Therefore, this section is both relevant and the reference is acceptable. Therefore considering 2 people consider this relevant, and only Kilz objects, I will remove. Widefox 08:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these pre-FF 2.0 test references are now labelled as such. Thomas B - is that how you wanted it? Widefox 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your own words "Please leave space here for others to comment, as is the process." stop seeking to influence people. Stop removing the tag while it is still under discussion, as I read Thomases words , he suggests replacing the tag with another one, not its complete removal As you have done while this is still under discussion. Kilz 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let Thomas B, me and others speak for ourselves! Widefox 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed if current information is not avaliable. It is dealing with an older version. The current article is based on firefox 2.0. The browser speed test site is also a private site and not a reliable source. Loki144 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas B said and I quote "Agreed, the age of the tests and the credentials of their author make this info suspect." further "If perceived or actual speed issues in firefox led to the development of this project, then info about these issues and the extent to which they are corrected is among the most relevant info on the page."

User Widefox is directed to read these statements and to understand that we have no citation stating why Swiftfox was created. That the citation requests that he continues to remove were requests for that information. Since we do not have the information the "if" in Thomas's statement isnt satisfied, if is a conditional statement. Without it being satisfied it cant be thought that it is agreeing that the information should be kept. We now have 1 vote for keeping, 1 vote that is conditional, and 2 that say remove. So I will be removing the section since user Widefox has not given the information that is conditional, has removed the relevance tag without replacing it with an out of date tag, and there is a vote that forms a consensus to remove.Kilz 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's a good debate here, this sort of scrutiny and compromise tends to result in stronger pages. Okay, number of points:

• The current page says that Swiftfox makes no claim of increased speed, merely increased optimization, but that seems self contradictory. From dictionary.com, "optimized" (in computing) means "so as to maximize efficiency and speed." An "optimized" browser thus has "maximized speed," or is "faster" in some way. Also, as pointed out before, the name "Swiftfox" implies some speediness over some other foxes. The extent of this improvement is the question of the day.
• The ideal would be current speed tests comparing the current browsers. Due to the constant progress on these browsers, and due to the contentious nature of benchmarks, this ideal is difficult to reliably maintain. As soon as we get this matter settled for 2.0, 3.0 will likely be coming down the pipe. I'm sympathetic with Loki, without current benchmarks, older comparisons are at best an awkward fix. On the other hand, silence on the issue might suggest no benchmarks have ever been compiled, which might actually be more misleading. There is no comfortable solution here, but I'd err on inclusion, with clear warnings of how dated the info is. I'm not sure if the current wording strongly emphasizes that these speed results are no longer reliable, I could see arguments both ways.
• Loki also raises a question about the reliability of a citation (I assume Loki means this one?). After consulting Misplaced Pages:Attribution, I'm still torn here. Scholarship on a private site is acceptable in some instances, but is this such an instance? Is this actual scholarship, or just a blog? Since the current citations are informative but somewhat lacking, I'd be tempted to leave them, but urge their quick replacement as soon as better sources can be found. My Misplaced Pages:Attribution foo is admittedly weak, so I'll bow to anyone who has a better suggestion on this point. Thomas B 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That was weird, I got no edit conflict warning, your section wasnt here when I started mine. So after reading , I will hold off on deleting the section right now. But I am placing some tags on it so that it may be updated and the unreliable source can be replaced.Kilz 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Swiftfox is a separate build created for each CPU i.e. P4, P3 etc by using compiler settings optimized for that CPU. Secondly, a higher level of compiler optimization. Thirdly, the settings have been adjusted/optimized to values which should give faster browsing. Lastly removing a non-essential part has reduced/optimized the binary size. These are the only things that make Swiftfox more "optimized" than a standard Firefox build. Swiftfox is only an attempt at optimising the build, nothing more really. The definition from dictionary.com that you are quoting seems to be missing the point that one can optimize for many things, not just speed. One can optimize for binary size (which the Firefox build is) - this often actually creates builds that run faster than highly optimized builds as there is a trade-off between the speed of loading a larger binary and the speed of execution. This is a well known microprocessor thing, not a browser or Firefox thing. Bottom line - Swiftfox may be optimized for speed, but it might be for your processor/machine, a size optimized browser will be quicker. Sorry for all the theory.
• Q: how outdated are FF 1.5 benchmarks? They are good enough for Firefox as I quote above.
• The whole field of browser benchmarking is quite new AFAIK. I think that could explain the lack of more authoritative speed benchmarks. Until now, the focus has more been on standards compliance and real-world rendering, than head-to-head speed. Watch this space, I suppose. Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Widefox

On March 26th user Widefox made a controversial edit that removed requests for citations and tags labeling areas relevance and neutrality. This is WP:VAND blanking. User Widefox is asked to discuss these edits before repeating them.Kilz 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your revert Kilz. You have reverted multiple edits without discussing - reverting should be a last resort, not first resort. I have reinstated the edits and to avoid conflict, have included the relevant tag (please see above for resolving that). I have removed the tags I placed due to the cleanup. Please discuss before reverting again, and let's get this last tag dealt with. Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the first two edits you reverted removed no tags or content. Please explain why you have reverted those? Widefox 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz - please read WP:VAND before accusing again, and discuss the content dispute (above) without such complications. Everyone can see there is no "deliberate" attempt to compromise wikipedia, and you have assumed bad faith, which is against the guidelines. FYI the procedure for real vandals is to inform them on their user page. Widefox 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, do not redo the vandalism. You have removed multiple tags and requests for citation. This is blanking. Do not remove tags or requests for research unless you place a citation. Your removal of them without placing a citation alters the article to make it appear they were not needed. Removing tags without consensus is wrong. Your redoing the edits is continued vandalism and have been reverted Kilz 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have repeatedly reverted my edits without justification. You are not meant to revert because of content disputes. Please take to an admin if you consider vandalism, else remove your accusation. Widefox 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This isnt a content dispute. You are intentionally blanking requests for citation on areas of what I consider original research you have added to the page. I will continue to replace them until you or someone else backs up the statements with links. Kilz 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being uncivil in repeating vandalism claims while providing no evidence. Where is the missing citation request?! If you persist in incorrectly reverting, and being uncivil I shall take this to an administrator to have you banned as previously. Widefox 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As of this edit , before you started there were requests for citations on claims you added. In this edit you removed them The citations were in place because IMHO the claims are original research. In fact they were part of the Firefox speed section above. You also removed a relevance tag, while a discussion on the topic was ongoing. This is blanking, not editing to improve the article, but removing things , not to improve the article, but to make you or your opinions look better. I am nethier being uncivil , or repeting things, because you a second time, after being told what you had done, you blanked the citation requests again. By the way, I know a lot more about the rules than I did last time you tried to twist them and play off accusations in one place against another claim. Your threatening me with a 3 revert rule , while the reverts were over multiple days was funny.Kilz 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote that section, therefore removing any possible objection. Kilz - please discuss the current article, not past versions. As to your accusations, they will be seen by all others as unfounded. Do you realise that Swiftfox is largely just a build of Firefox! It's really not that big a deal. Your attacks on the software and author Jason (see history of this page and your talk page for details), due to your licensing dispute with him are clearly creating a problem disproportionate to the importance of this article. Widefox 08:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Widefox, in one sentence you tell me to work on the present article, in the next you go into ancient history with a theory about me that is not true. There is no licensing dispute. Stick to the facts and not wild unproven theory's about me.

You again removed a request for the citations, even rewriting it a little will not change the fact that they are needed, I will just place requests where they are needed in the newest version. Either remove the claims, or add the citations, do not just change the wording of the section a little and remove them. Kilz 11:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In your own words you got into a licence dispute with Jason and got banned from various forums including wikipedia. I do not want to go over that again - you have been outed already. Widefox 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancient history, that Jason stopped me from distributing Swiftfox is of no importance. You rely to much on it, he also stopped you from distributing it, and everyone else. My sole motivation is the improvement of this article and that it be as up to date and factual as possible. You now bring up that I have been banned from wikipedia, that has not happened, as you can see this account is the same as the one I have always edited from. That in the past you told lies and used one lie to build on another lie that got be temp restricted because of 3 reverts is a non story. Needless to say, I now know that rule and you wont be able to use it on me again to spread lies.Kilz 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But you seem to want to leave in old , nonfactual information, information from unreliable sources, and statements of fact that you cant back up. You then delete the requests for you to back up those statements. You are now twisting the words of another editor, when they plainly go against you and suggest placing an outdated information tag, instead you remove any tag. Looking above it looks like someone agrees with me that the section should be removed. So as I see it, there is one for keeping it, one for labeling it as old information, and 2 to remove it. Kilz 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

from what I remember Kilz was banned 1 day for 3RR violation of Swiftfox. Previous to that, Kilz was also banned from the Swiftfox forum, and has been told to move his arguments off at least one other forum I read. Links available Talk:Swiftfox/Archive_1 and User_talk:Kilz/Archive. Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz was banned - see link Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz. Widefox 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no ban. Misplaced Pages makes a distinction between a block and a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Kilz was never even blocked, 67.175.233.209 was blocked. --Iamunknown 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

67.175.233.209 was the static IP of Kilz, and he was blocked 48hrs (not 1 day like I said). Yes he was "blocked" not "banned" (my and his mistaken word). I think we all agree about this. Widefox 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Widefox. That also is an admission that my ip cant be a sockpuppet. Since my ip is static, it cant be anyone but me. This is also an admission on your part that you filed a false sockpuppet claim imho. Kilz 21:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdated information and source tags

The Out of date information and reliable source tags in the Speed section of the article deal with the fact that they use Firefox 1.5 data. Also that the Citation #12 (Browser speed test) is a private site without any editorial over site. These sections need to be updated and citations replaced with ones relevant to Firefox 2.0. Kilz 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article Firefox also uses FF 1.5 data, which is essentially where this argument is taken from. Are you proposing to change Firefox too? You do realise that FF 1.5 isn't that long ago, both in time and code. Also FF 3 will come out within months, so you are setting a high quality threshold that requires high/if not impossibly high maintenance burden for articles. The bottom line - this is Swiftfox not Swiftfox 2.0.0.3 or Swiftfox 2.0, or Firefox 2.0.0.4pre which is what I'm using right now! Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not edit the Firefox main page. What the editors of that page do is up to them. But the current browser is what the average reader would believe they are reading about in this article, and in the Firefox one to imho. We as editors should strive to have links and information on the most current released version imho. Isnt that one of the advantages of Misplaced Pages, that it can be updated, so it doesnt become out of date? Some of the information, especialy in the Browser speed test is dealing with Firefox 1.0, and beta versions of Firefox 1.5, so its even older. I dont think we should be using that information at all because it is very out of date, not to mention from a private site with no editorial over site. We list the current version in the info box, we use up to date info where we can. We should not confuse the reader by listing the current version, then listing data about an older version. Kilz 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit Firefox (which is star rated), Swiftfox and most/all Firefox related articles. I do not need or request your arbitrary restrictions on version numbers for any of these articles thank you. The article you are talking about is Swiftfox 2.0. Obviously older info is less valid, but equally you or I do not dictate anything, or ring-fence articles. Widefox 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Info point - the current versions of Swiftfox are 2.0.0.3 , 2.0.0.4pre, Trunk, 1.5.0.7 Widefox 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That Swiftfox has binaries available for older versions does not make them the current one. Basic understanding and common sense should prove that 1.5.0.7 is an older version than 2.0.0.3. Thank you for posting that, as it shows that Swiftfox stopped working on the 1.5.0 branch early. The download page for 1.5.0 says1.5.0.11 was available. We can see that Swiftfox stopped producing the 1.5.0 branch, making it an older version. Also on the Firefox download page,at the bottom, we see that the end of life for the 1.5.0 branch is April 24, 2007. Since Swiftfox is only a build of the Firefox code with firefox patches, and all versions to date have been the same. That support for the code and development of any patches for that code will end in 23 days. We now know for sure that the old pages and information in the Swiftfox article will be useless in a matter of days. So Im sure everyone will agree we should seek to replace this old, and in the case of the Browser Speed test, non reliable information. That other articales may contain old and suspect information is not important to the Swiftfox article. Neither is it a reason to include that old and suspect information here.Kilz 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim of "current version" is not verified, unlike mine. You admit that 1.5.0 is current. Misplaced Pages works on verifiability. FYI Firefox 1.5.0.x and 2.0.0.x versions are current versions Widefox 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1.5.0 is not the current version, 2.0 is. That Swiftfox has older builds from the past for download does not make it the current version. It is verified. Since you cant see the link above that sets the absolute end of life for 1.5.0 , here it is again Firefox download page On the bottom, the 1.5.0 branch reaches end of life April 24, 2007. This also does not mean that 1.5.0 is current, it states that all use should stop as of April 24, 2007. Since Swiftfox is built from Firefox code, and that code is at end of life then, so is any build of it. Second link you cant see (or dont want to see). 1.5.0.11 is the current version Since you state Swiftfox stopped at 1.5.0.7 , it is 4 versions older than the code it is built from. Kilz 16:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just replaced the tags for out of date information and unreliable sources. The information in the speed section relies on articles on version 1.5.0, they are 2 years old. 1.5.0 is not the current version 2.0 is. No matter how Widefox twists the language , 1.5.0 is not the current version 2.0 is. We have no data to back up the claims on the 2.0 version. We cant rely on old information of past versions to prove points on the current version. Even so the Browser speed test is a private site with no editorial oversight. It is not a reliable source. It needs to be replaced with a reliable source. It also deals with version 1.0 and BETA versions of 1.5 and 2.0. It is ancient by any standard. There is a consensus's to tag the area as out of date. The other option is to delete it altogether. Widefox is asked to either leave the tags in place while up to date info replaces it, or delete the entire section.Kilz 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Kilz. The current version of Swiftfox is 2.0.0.3. This article should be about 2.0. If we can't find references for the speed section for 2.0, the section should be removed. The out of date tag is a good temp solution. That way we warn people that the information is about the older 1.5.0 version. The tag should be left in place until the section has been updated with 2.0 data. I also think we should remove the browser speed test citation. It contains information about Firefox version 1.0 and the beta version of 1.5. IDontBelieveYou 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Linux articles
• Unknown-importance Linux articles
• WikiProject Linux articles