We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Questionable software"
Rapespider (talk | contribs) m (Rapespider moved page Talk:Questionable Software to Talk:Questionable software: Compliance with wikipedia naming conventions.) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Still, I agree with ^, this whole page scream of "I don't like it, therefore is shit". I know it's the /g/ attitude, so I won't even complain. [[User:Spittie|Spittie]] ([[User talk:Spittie|talk]]) 23:06, 2 February 2014 (EST) | Still, I agree with ^, this whole page scream of "I don't like it, therefore is shit". I know it's the /g/ attitude, so I won't even complain. [[User:Spittie|Spittie]] ([[User talk:Spittie|talk]]) 23:06, 2 February 2014 (EST) | ||
| − | I'm a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, the only rule/guideline we have is the current /g/ sticky, which says "/g/ is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site." On the other hand, we have several pages specifically recommending software, and this page is just the opposite of that. I think, perhaps, the definition of "Pure Shit" should be tightened up a bit though, as Arch is clearly contentious. Myself, I'm keeping out of this for now (as I post from a Manjaro laptop) [[User:Toynbeeidea|Toynbeeidea]] ([[User talk:Toynbeeidea|talk]]) 08:11, 3 February 2014 (EST) | + | :I'm a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, the only rule/guideline we have is the current /g/ sticky, which says "/g/ is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site." On the other hand, we have several pages specifically recommending software, and this page is just the opposite of that. I think, perhaps, the definition of "Pure Shit" should be tightened up a bit though, as Arch is clearly contentious. Myself, I'm keeping out of this for now (as I post from a Manjaro laptop) [[User:Toynbeeidea|Toynbeeidea]] ([[User talk:Toynbeeidea|talk]]) 08:11, 3 February 2014 (EST) |
Great work [[User:Rapespider|Rapespider]]!. These are the kind of edits this wiki needs. --[[User:Bisasam|Bisasam]] ([[User talk:Bisasam|talk]]) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (EST) | Great work [[User:Rapespider|Rapespider]]!. These are the kind of edits this wiki needs. --[[User:Bisasam|Bisasam]] ([[User talk:Bisasam|talk]]) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Could we create an objective set of rules which would let us determine how shit a piece of software is? Here's a few I've considered: | ||
| + | * Does it phone home (if so, why, how often, what is it reporting)? | ||
| + | * Does removing/uninstalling it take a considerably unreasonable amount of effort to do? | ||
| + | * Does it run unnecessary background services when it is believed to be closed? | ||
| + | * Does it alter system or user files without any warning or explicit consent? | ||
| + | * Does it request more permissions than it would reasonably need? | ||
| + | * Has it been known to have major flaws or security holes? If so, have these problems continued to persist. | ||
| + | * Is the interface confusing, poorly designed, or sluggish? (subjective) | ||
| + | --[[User:Placebo|Placebo]] ([[User talk:Placebo|talk]]) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Placebo, just go ahead and do it. --[[User:Chchjesus|Chchjesus]] ([[User talk:Chchjesus|talk]]) 03:12, 12 February 2014 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::If I do it, I wanna do it proper. --[[User:Placebo|Placebo]] ([[User talk:Placebo|talk]]) 06:12, 12 February 2014 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Propaganda == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reminder that this page is propaganda and should be removed <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Watashi|Watashi]] ([[User talk:Watashi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Watashi|contribs]]) 10:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, I do agree with you to a point. This page's predecessor started out as something significantly worse. I believe that we do need a page like this, but I do not think that it should come off as propaganda. Instead, it should cover software that is controversial on /g/ in a balanced and objective fashion. I removed the entry on Google Chrome, because it was both bad and content-light. I honestly do not know why I wrote something so stupid. I am also considering moving the page to 'Controversial software', since 'Questionable software' might give people the wrong idea. --[[User:Rapespider|Rapespider]] ([[User talk:Rapespider|talk]]) 05:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | After giving it some thought and creating a more appropriate page for the Java content, I fully agree that this article should be deleted. --[[User:Rapespider|Rapespider]] ([[User talk:Rapespider|talk]]) 07:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:41, 26 February 2014
This page isn't informative at all. If you're going to say things are crap, don't just put stuff like "it's crap because I haven't seen anything good come out of it". This is subjective crap, and helps no-one.--Chchjesus (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2014 (EST)
>All Java software is pure shit I have yet to find any exceptions.
>He never used IntelliJ or other JetBrains products
Still, I agree with ^, this whole page scream of "I don't like it, therefore is shit". I know it's the /g/ attitude, so I won't even complain. Spittie (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2014 (EST)
- I'm a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, the only rule/guideline we have is the current /g/ sticky, which says "/g/ is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site." On the other hand, we have several pages specifically recommending software, and this page is just the opposite of that. I think, perhaps, the definition of "Pure Shit" should be tightened up a bit though, as Arch is clearly contentious. Myself, I'm keeping out of this for now (as I post from a Manjaro laptop) Toynbeeidea (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2014 (EST)
Great work Rapespider!. These are the kind of edits this wiki needs. --Bisasam (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (EST)
Could we create an objective set of rules which would let us determine how shit a piece of software is? Here's a few I've considered:
- Does it phone home (if so, why, how often, what is it reporting)?
- Does removing/uninstalling it take a considerably unreasonable amount of effort to do?
- Does it run unnecessary background services when it is believed to be closed?
- Does it alter system or user files without any warning or explicit consent?
- Does it request more permissions than it would reasonably need?
- Has it been known to have major flaws or security holes? If so, have these problems continued to persist.
- Is the interface confusing, poorly designed, or sluggish? (subjective)
--Placebo (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (EST)
Propaganda
Reminder that this page is propaganda and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watashi (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do agree with you to a point. This page's predecessor started out as something significantly worse. I believe that we do need a page like this, but I do not think that it should come off as propaganda. Instead, it should cover software that is controversial on /g/ in a balanced and objective fashion. I removed the entry on Google Chrome, because it was both bad and content-light. I honestly do not know why I wrote something so stupid. I am also considering moving the page to 'Controversial software', since 'Questionable software' might give people the wrong idea. --Rapespider (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
After giving it some thought and creating a more appropriate page for the Java content, I fully agree that this article should be deleted. --Rapespider (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
