Talk:Questionable software

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)