Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.14.236.50 (talk) at 23:03, 10 December 2016 (→“Rationale” section: Community discussion should settle the question of consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Software: Computing Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

“Rationale” section

Is a section named “Rationale” appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a software product? Particularly when it seems like it would better fit in an article about the technology itself, i.e. Application virtualization. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I’ve merged that section with the lead and removed an unsourced “Technical” section, and now the article seems rather too short to be split into sections. So now it’s not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No points for the removal of unsourced sections & crippling the article from its context: this removing, crippling is simple and no contribution to WP. Adding sources, context and good content is a contribution, not what you are doing. Now a reader can't understand what this is about... *sigh* Shaddim (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: The removal of unsourced content is in line with policy. If you think the removed content was valuable, simply cite RSes that support it. Verifiability is mandatory. Don’t like it? Don’t use Misplaced Pages. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, this article could really use some independent reliable sources to establish notability. Does Flatpak have significant coverage in sources unrelated to the project or those who use it? If it’s notable enough to have an article, it does, and we should use those sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability is mandatory." absolutely, I'm fully behind the this strong WP concept, for **constructs (controversial, perosnal stuff) which require** them. Not every sentence. On reliability, we had this discussion before and your overfocus on your overlystrict interpretation of "reliable sources" is of little benefit for WP (while you confess yourself you are weak in research... I would really like to introduce that only the one who contributes is allowed to remove....). Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You’re contradicting policy: All content must be verifiable. The same section details precisely who is responsible for research. And yes, we had that discussion about reliability, and Whether you like it or not, your vision does not agree with the current consensus even among those participants. So stop it. Seriously. Either get people talking about it (e.g. at WP:VPP or WT:V) and agreeing with your view, or stop it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I will not agree on your excessive interpretation of verifiability & reliabilty (while throwing links to policies around which might look like backing but it does not), also I disagree with your excessive enforcement of your position which is not consensus but just your policy interpretation. Please stop that. Your interpretation is on on extrem border my on is on the other end. Please leave articles alone a work, you seems to randomly follow me and disturb the work I try to do while you seems not to have a constrcutive focus or article domain. Could you not start to try to create an new article & fill it? this is fun, try it.

Shaddim (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that’s it. Let’s settle this. Since you have yet to do so, I’m starting a community discussion. Keep an eye on WP:VPP. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Other distro-agnostic systems

This paragraph seems like it should go in an article about distribution-agnostic packaging, not an article about an individual solution. Also, the writing kinda devolves toward the end.

Distribution-agnostic packaging formats for the Linux ecosystem were proposed multiple times before Flatpak. In the early 2000s autopackage was started, in 2004 klik, which was also the inspiration for Alexander Larsson's precursor packaging project glick in 2007. klik has evolved until 2014 into AppImage, with the goal of distro-agnostic portable upstream packaging. Canonical released in 2016 with snap also a packaging format for the broader linux ecosystem, which supports like Flatpak a centralized appstore digital distribution and update model.

1. experiments with run-timeless app bundles by Alex Larsson (2007)
2. Universal “snap” packages launch on multiple Linux distros by Canonical (14 June 2016)

Thoughts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your quest for removal of content is annoying. "Alternative" sections have a good tradition in wikipedia. Please refrain in future from removing them. Instead improve and add content, like your suggested creation of an article "distribution-agnostic packaging", I would cheer you for doing so. Shaddim (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: I don’t know if that topic is notable enough for an article. And I’m not great at research, so I generally leave that to those who are.
"Alternative" sections have a good tradition in wikipedia. Examples? I don’t think I’ve seen a FA or GA listing historical examples of a category that does not have its own article. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any, of course, but could you show me? Also, I don’t think 2016 was “before Flatpak.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(it is really horrible how EASY deletion is: you just can do it with on click and than shift the burden of work and defense again on me: "prove that this" ... after other authors invested countless time in research and formulation and created... this is the core reason why WP loss authors... the arrogance of th deleting authors who can give themselves the feeling of importance by trampling with weight but little value on the contributing ones... its easier and more rewarding)

Go for it, I assure you I will not revert or delete. Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

All right—find some usable high-level sources, and I’ll try and write up a draft from them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, I you do that I applaud you. Shaddim (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Start-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles