Talk:Web desktop/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

archive page

No objection. Any subsections older then 3 months should be moved.--Pmedema (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The archive page and apparently its contents were deleted under criteria for speedy deletion by User:Karanacs on July 7. Maybe the naming convention used was inappropriate ? Anyway, those comments are gone and the archive page needs to either be restored or recreated maybe using the naming convention described in the guidelines. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki compatible?

What does this mean? I think we should make it a bit more clear the purpose of that critera. FirefoxMan 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I suggst removing it. Artw 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The string Wiki compatible does not appear any longer. I suggest that this sub-section be removed from the discussion page. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.156.22 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yes,i agree that the sub-section be removed. Anoopnair2050 (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i also think that sub-section needs to be removed. Rupesh86 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Webtop or Web Desktop?

Which is the prefered term? I had thought "Web Desktop", but "Webtop" seems ever more popular. Should the article be moved to that namespace? Artw 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to googlefight, webtop is more popular. FirefoxMan 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, any objections to moving it and changing the text of any links pointing back to it "Webtop"? Artw 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "the Webtop" is a brand name, though.

prefered term = webtop.

Like it or not, the term webtop is here to stay. Let us make the change. Let the brand-owner defend his brand if he may.Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

webtop is better since it is easily pronounced and convenient in saying Anoopnair2050 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes WEBTOP is more preferrable. This single word conveys the message in a better manner.
Dhoomady (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do agree with above statement that webtop is most preferrable. Rupesh86 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Desktop and Webtop, Renaming the page to Webtop sounds more informative than naming it Web-Desktop. I think majority of them want the article to be named Webtop I would request one of the editors to do the job else i will do it Edeskonline (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

URL's

Perhaps Direct URL links should be removed from the table to avoid conflicts of interest. It seem's linking from the projects main article makes much more sense.

Also, just because a homepage may not be using desktop emulation does not mean the projects homepage actually reflects the system, for instance the URL provided for WebtopOS is a non-desktop style CMS which links to but is not the actual script demo. (which is very nice BTW) AdvancedWebhosting 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the direct URL to Virtual-OS after I noticed that webtopos.com URL has a reciprocated link to this page. I don't know if this justifies having direct URL's in a comparison table but it does make it more eligible in my opinion. AdvancedWebhosting 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

depends on person to person url links should not be removed.some people do see the url links and does understand where they go.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Virtual-OS

Virtual-OS's task manager is currently being revised due to a notable security issues that resulted in several sites being defaced which was reported on TV and in print media, regardless client windowing is still in place on the homepage which is currently being revised due to this.

In other words, many key OS/desktop features are disabled on the homepage to insure private information integrity on the registration server, there are other sites using Virtual-OS in an unrestricted manner regardless of the current vulnerabilities.

This is a temporary comment in regards to recent "vandalism" and the security issue and corresponding restrictions have been mentioned on the related project article; the task manager should be back online shortly at which point this will no longer be an issue. AdvancedWebhosting 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but are you working in the development of the site? I noticed that your username is the same as the brand of the designers of Virtual-OS. Are you in any way connected to either? Also, comments on the wikipedia are not "temporary", they should never be removed unless they are archived, and then only if the talk page becomes very large. FirefoxMan 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No I am not a programmer as such, but I am directly connected as Executive Director of Advanced Webhosting Network [Canada] a sister company of the Delaware based LLC head office. Generally I feel comfortable speaking on the behalf of the company and programmers and have a good understanding of the core technology, although we do have a dedicated spokespersons with corresponding credentials.

As I'm sure you've noticed I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the intricacies of the guidelines without becoming a connoisseur of the taste of my own foot. I'll keep the "on the record" policy in mind. I have the feeling that the question may imply that I'm in violation of the guidelines. I did assume that since a majority of the web OS information is being maintained by the corresponding developer that this wouldn't be an issue. I try to adhere to a neutral viewpoint, but the natural bias of a creator is indisputable. *Braces herself to be read the Vanity Act* AdvancedWebhosting 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this, though. FirefoxMan 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

should make a account like personal login and passwords and the os desktop feautures should be enabled and this will reduce issues. Anoopnair2050 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Big WebOS roundup

Does this article help? XD http://franticindustries.com/blog/2006/12/21/big-webos-roundup-10-online-operating-systems-reviewed/ Jaimeastorga2000 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://mashable.com/2007/08/22/web-os/ Perhaps this one as well. --Rgb9000 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

http://ntt.cc/2008/03/04/list-of-the-most-great-web-operating-systems-over-19.html And this one. A lot of these don't even have articles yet. Psychcf (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

all articles really will help since it will make understand about the topic.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Purge of non-notable entries in table?

Is there a consensus on whether non-notable (red-link, no-link, external-link) entries belong in the table in this article? -- Ben 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a precedent... here and here. -- Ben 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and just do it... -- Ben 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion (after I posted question below) and I wonder, is deleting red links the best way to clean up WP? Wouldn't it be better to spend the effort to create those pages instead? Even a red link lets people know that it exists if they want to go and research it more and make a WP page. Also, I think that there ARE some notable entries that got the axe just because noone had filled in the details yet, and this article was set back as a result. And is a 3 hour window enough time to ask a question about a major page reformat and content deletion? I'm not against the information deletion but think this move was a little hasty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_desktop&oldid=168543655)

--Rgb9000 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In order... Yes. No. Yes after looking around and finding precedents. I tried to make it clear that I think/thought there is/was a precedent for sections like this one that red-link entries should not be included. I'll get together the rest of the discussion and link it here. This section is a veritable spam magnet. Keeping it blue-link only keeps the spam to a minimum. -- Swerdnaneb 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Piecing it together slowly... there's a bit of a discussion here. -- Swerdnaneb 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what this article REALLY needs is to be split, with this page detailing what a web desktop really is, and another page being a more comprehensive list/comparison of web desktop offerings. If someone who didn't know what a web desktop was the article could tell them what it was, the list could tell them all details of particular ones.

--Rgb9000 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm reading this right... You are suggesting creating a separate list so that entries can be included that don't have articles? Is that the motivation? Or just to separate out the content? I'm all for separating out the content if the page is overly long, but I think it's overkill for the subject as it stands now. -- Swerdnaneb 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Both. If the list was on it's own page there is no harm in letting it be large, and could have multiple tables to sort them out in various ways. Plus it just seems logical. But I suppose I concede it might be overkill at the moment, but that might change in the future, this seems to be a fast developing area as new contenders pop up and the existing ones come closer to launching better and better versions. --Rgb9000 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the Nivio entry in the table to repair some formatting errors that were introduced when it was added. Then I read this section of the talk page and notice that Nivio does not have a Wikipedia entry. So, perhaps it should be removed from the table in accordance with the previous discussion. Further, I suggest not only limiting the table to notable entries but getting rid of the table all together and replacing it with wiki links to each entry's article. That is, don't the details belong on the article that describes the entry? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

-Anon531 I think some of the editors of TOW are going off the deep end and are demonstrating what may be considered censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.157.183 (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Goowy

Surely the Goowy website should be chronicled here as well. ( http://www.goowy.com/index.aspx )--Rgb9000 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An article on Goowy has been created four times and deleted each time. The only AfD discussion was here, in June 2006. It seems all the previous attempts failed because the article was so bad, though someone could always try again. I haven't yet seen anything to distinguish Goowy from dozens of competitors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I thought Goowy would be notable due to the polish and completeness of this product VS other web desktops. It was also mentioned and reviewed in the article linked above. I was unaware it had been deleted 4 times prior. --Rgb9000 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing... "polish and completeness" does not confer notability. If you think Goowy can meet the notability guidelines, I don't think people are opposed to a new article about it. -- Swerdnaneb 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK. I'm trying to bow out gracefully here. :P --Rgb9000 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good times. :P It sucks that sometimes great software goes unnoticed by a lot of people. -- Swerdnaneb 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Word. Psychcf (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

-Anon531 I think some of the editors of TOW are going off the deep end and are demonstrating what may be considered censorship.

Web operating system != web desktop

A web desktop really refers to how you can use web applications such as google docs to replace something like microsoft office. I don't seem to understand why there's a list of web operating systems on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychcf (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SCO invented everything?

I question the addition of eight new external links regarding SCO activities. If SCO was really the prime mover for all this stuff there should be direct citations to third parties that admit that SCO was the first. Since I don't see actual inline citations for some of the claims of 'firsts' it makes me feel this material is excessive and should be greatly toned down. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced template

I placed the references regarding Tarantella and the SCO Webtop in response to the "unreferenced" template at the beginning of the article. All of the references seemed relevant but by no means is it intended that the reference section be dominated by SCO related links. Please add additional references. In fact, Tarantella and the parallel work I did _do_ seem to be the earliest work on developing a Webtop. I'm trying to provide citations and references for that work and many of them are third parties (only one of the references and one of the notes are direct links to SCO). If the current references seem excessive then perhaps they should be toned down or, alternatively, additional references added for other Webtop efforts. I'd be happy to alter or remove references i've added if you can point to specifics and indicate how the link in question is not relevant to the article or otherwise violates Wikipedia guidelines.

Agreed the article needs inline citations. I'd be happy to work on that and would appreciate any help or suggestions. I'm trying to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid any appearance of conflict of interest which sometimes makes it difficult to cite myself. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're on the right track. However we really need outside commentary, not just reports from the participants. Here is one of the sentences that needs such a reference: Andy Bovingdon and Ronald Joe Record, who both explored the concepts in different directions, are often credited as the inventors. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article organization

There seem to be (at least) three different general technologies referred to in this article. The Tarantella/SCO Webtop/Sun Secure Global Desktop architectures enable applications run on a server or set of application servers to be accessed and displayed on a variety of clients, optionally embedded in a browser. Another class of "Web desktop" appears to be "web apps" run via a web server plus something like Tomcat, javascript, flash, PHP, ASP, etc. There is a Wikipedia article titled Web application describing these. The third class of software referred to here is something called a "Web OS". There is another Wikipedia article titled Web operating system describing these.

A "Web desktop" could be constructed using any or all of these. I'd like to suggest organizing this article so each of these techniques is described (briefly for Web applications and Web operating systems with a link to their respective pages), perhaps in separate sections. Further, the History section currently focuses on the Tarantella/Webtop/Sun architecture. If this article is really about all the different ways to construct and deploy a web desktop then that section needs further work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorfree (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. When I first came across this article I was thinking AfD, but I found that some of the information is WP:N and has WP:RS... therefore I've been trying to sort of clean it up and culling the junk from it. If we could put our heads together with a couple of other tech type editors then I think that all of these points that you have mentioned can be addressed. I'd like to see a proper structure for this area and to have it properly linked up with other tech aspects. I just get sick and tired of everyone who designs a piece of software trying to rack it off as notable. How would you like to start? Wonding if there is a wikiproject that might want to get involved with this. --Pmedema (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd favor considering some of the articles on the less notable Web desktops for deletion. The present article is not too bad but it certainly doesn't make the idea of a web desktop very clear. It might help to find a Web desktop that is currently in wide use (if there are any) and give a bit more narrative of what it does and what type of task it is good for. One idea for improving this page is to look for a major review article in some trade publication, one that would give some of the history. See what they consider important. The current reference to a CNN Money article is of the right kind but very short. Plus their definition is so wide that they consider online calendars to be webtops, as well as the Basecamp (software) product from 37signals. They seem to consider *any* web-based application to be a Webtop. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok... so our first thing is to determine if Web desktop should be part of another article or is this going to be a parent for other articles. Like is this supposed to be in Web application or should web application be here in Web desktop...? Is there going to be one aspect of web desktop or the variations of what a web desktop is as pointed out by User:Doctorfree.

Not sure I understand the article parent consideration. Why shouldn't there be separate articles for Web application and Web desktop? If one is the parent of the other then I would favor Web desktop as parent since it is an umbrella concept encompassing web applications, framework, management, user identity, application distribution, authentication, privilege, GUI, and more. I suggest we continue the cleanup and I would like to start on a section on Webtop architectures. I'd also like to rewrite the intro to provide a better definition of the phrase in easily understood terms, drawing on references to Desktop environment, Desktop metaphor, and History of the graphical user interface. Unfortunately my free time comes in unpredictable spurts so please continue your improvements while I free myself. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please present your intro so that we can see what you have in mind. BTW... the EyeOS article looks alot better. I'd like to see a little less ad and more tech / WP:N about it though.--Pmedema (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll present a revised intro when I get it written and look forward to collaborating on an improved article. What I have in mind is a brief explaination of what a desktop is and what a web desktop is. Merging descriptions from related articles like "A desktop environment typically provides icons, windows, toolbars, folders, wallpapers, and desktop widgets. In addition, a desktop environment may offer collaboration support like drag and drop and inter-process notification. On the whole, the purpose of a desktop environment is the consistent integration of a graphical user interface and its applications to the user with a consistent look and feel." from Desktop environment; replacing the "monitor" with the "web browser" in the Desktop metaphor. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking good so far... I've been busy as of late and just getting back to this now. Sorry bout that. By all means, keep going...

I suggest improving the current introduction hopefully making it easier for an average person to understand and referencing other relevant articles. A revised intro might read something like the following:

A web desktop (webtop) is a desktop environment embedded in a web browser or similar client application. A webtop integrates web applications, web services, client-server applications, application servers, and applications on the local client into a desktop environment using the desktop metaphor. Web desktops provide an environment similar to that of Windows, Mac, or a graphical user interface on Unix and Linux systems. It is a virtual desktop running in a web browser. In a webtop the applications, data, files, configuration, settings, and access privileges reside remotely over the network. Much of the computing takes place remotely. The browser is primarily used for display and input purposes.

That looks good to me, but I would revise the part about "A webtop intergrates ...". See #Too many similarities between WebOS and Web Desktop for my thoughts. Psychcf (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also would suggest improving the advantages/drawbacks section and adding a section detailing various software architectures. I'll try to provide suggested text for these as well. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added a "citation needed" to something linking to a blog. Feel free to remove the statement if you think it's completely false. Psychcf (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions?

I dont' understand why records like Ulteo, eyeOS have been removed from the table? thebrentc@gmail.com Thebrentc (talk)thebrentc —Preceding comment was added at 09:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They were removed form the table because their corresponding articles were deleted. See Ulteo AFD and EyeOS (deleted as blatant advertising). -- Swerdnaneb 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undo the deletion of eyeOS because was unfairly deleted, and its restored by an editor now. Thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Brand new editor Akaarnaz is busy restoring all red-linked entries to the article

Quite a number of systems that have no Wikipedia articles have been removed from this article over the last few months. Having an article is a guarantee of notability; lack of an article hints at spam. User:Akaarnaz, a brand-new editor who began contributing on May 6, is busy restoring all these red-linked systems to the article. I have asked him to join the Talk discussion and explain why his activities should not be considered spam. If you have an opinion on excluding red-linked entries, please comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I don't agree with your statement that 'having an articlue is a guarantee of notability' and 'lack of an article hints at spam'. Red links are articles just WAITING to be created! Perhaps WP would be better served turning the red links blue? I am OK with having the red links in the article as long as they are current and relevant. I personally would commend Akaarnaz for appending all of the links. I found his contribution page to be extremely useful for finding and building a more complete list of Web OSs. --Rgb9000 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement under disadvantages cites a blog

Under "disadvantages", there's a bullet that cites a blogpost, which is not a valid source.

Some say that there is no point to web operating systems and that they
are "inherently an inadequate application development platform."

Psychcf (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Glide ?

Hey it is a nice page this one, I just discovered it today. but I don't see anything about Glide, there is a post on it on lifehacker this morning. Hope it helps. [Glide Web-based Desktop Now Syncs Local Files] Stooof (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

pls tell me where u wish to add it ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External links section

I have just added an External link section on the article, It would be better if all the editors contribute towards that section to make it more informative. Kalivd (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The external link section was removed from the page stating that it wasnt discussed in the discussion page by EdJohnston, so i would like to discuss whether the inclusion of External links section should be made or not as the link that i had provided was relating to the article and was quiet informative Kalivd (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to add that EdJohnston mentioned that two valid entries were removed. These edits were not done by me. I had only added the External Link section which I feel is valid. Kalivd (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But I disagree with the argument of not having an external link section just because it can be misused. WP:EL allows external links. A well monitored external link section with useful links definitely add value to the article. Just because someone may misuse it, does not mean we should not have it at all. If someone is able to find good informative external links which conform to WP:EL, i see no reason why they should not add them to the article. Dhshah (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel the external Links section is of use as more information of Chapters relating to the subject can be browsed easilyDhoomady (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote For an external link sub section Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

- online-tech-tips.com

The two removed entries were taken out by the contributor previous to you. My problem with the added link to http://www.online-tech-tips.com is that it looks like it is going to an anonymous personal web site, not the site of a recognized authority, or a person who has regular publications elsewhere. The other problem is that articles like this tend to be inundated with external links, and when we don't have any links at all it is easier to hold the line. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree with EdJohnston, that the notability of the link online-tech-tips.com seems doubtful.

Dhshah (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

- money.cnn.com

To start things with i have found another link which is a very well known website and is pretty notable, http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/24/smbusiness/business2_nextnet_webtop/index.htm how about adding this.Kalivd (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Great link! I don't see a problem with even using some of the content and citing/referencing that article. --Pmedema (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nbpandya (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Pandya : You have to justify EACh link Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Sanjiv.Dhoomady (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone might know that all are pretty well known Web Desktops Kalivd (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I had posted the related URLs & justified them. Can you explain why this place is not the proper place where the URLs can be mentionedNbpandya (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many similarities between WebOS and Web Desktop

I feel that there isn't a clear distinction between a WebOS and a Web Desktop. The current sources are not helpful, there's too many inconsistencies in naming and definition.

Here is what I propose for the requirements for something to be called a Web Desktop:

A desktop environment which runs in a web browser, and enables the user to run multiple applications, either through a window environment or a tab-based environment.
A framework that at the very least provides a method of viewing, editing, and deleting files on the server persistently.
A widget library to provide a unified and consistent user interface
Support for applications that do a multitude of tasks such as feed aggregator, word processor, etc.
Does not require additional plugins (such as Adobe Flash Player, or Java), but can take advantage of plugins (when available) to provide enhanced functionality.

This would make the WebOS a platform consisting of services that can be used interchangeably with desktop applications. Psychcf (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your efforts to bring order to this chaos. My own views are above, in a comment under #Article organization. One problem is whether we are imposing our own definition. Ideally we would be quoting definitions recommended by others in reliable sources. If the sources are totally mixed, I suppose we could impose our own definition. I still think it would help to find some widely-used application, and document it in detail as an example for our readers of what we are talking about. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminology and confusion about what a web operating system refers to is certainly a problem and one which Wikipedia could play a positive role in addressing. The Web operating system article does a pretty good job of summarizing the various popular interpretations of what a web operating system is. One of these is synonymous with web desktop and, as far as i can tell, really has no business being referred to as an operating system. No web desktop i am familiar with receives system calls or controls hardware devices directly or performs memory management or allocation of system resources. However, many things called "WebOS" or variations thereof are really a web desktop. I think the confusion stems mainly from vendors naming their web desktops <Something>-OS.

The attempt at specifying requirements above is admirable but, in my opinion, too restrictive and in need of refinement. It's a good starting point. I agree with the above stated ideal of referencing reliable sources for a definition and requirements. If detailing an example webtop is agreed to be a good idea, a widely deployed corporate webtop is the Sun Secure Global Desktop (formerly Tarantella). However, it's proprietary and expensive so maybe an open source implementation would be preferable as an example. At any rate, I would like to proceed with the suggested revised introduction above in #Article organization maybe coupled with a short disambiguation from Web Operating System. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of web desktops

How about adding the foll urls to this sub section . Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ( These urls have been added by mr pandya: see above )

its really agreat idea! it will really improve the article and will help in understanding the above topics.....Anoopnair2050 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous deletion of "non-notable" desktops

Why are the "non-notable" desktops being deleted? The point of Wikipedia articles is that they be useful. If there is a desktop out there that can be currently used, who cares how notable it is? Who cares if the articles about them have been deleted? They should not have been deleted. Granted some articles might read like advertisements. That can be fixed, and it is better to have an article that is labeled as an advertisement than no article at all.

I came to Wikipedia to find out about Ulteo. I think any available web desktop is notable. I think that Ulteo is notable because it makes use of colinux, and I wanted to find out information about that. Who cares if the list will become huge. There are plenty of huge lists on Wikipedia of things that most people don't care about.

Why are people deleting useful information for no good reason? --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have articles indiscriminately, it uses inclusion criteria. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, for example. One inclusion criteria is notability. If a subject doesn't have independent reliable sources it shouldn't be included. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a site dedicated to the subject matter would be a better resource. swa q 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If a subject doesn't have independent reliable sources it shouldn't be included.

It's not that is shouldn't be included, it is just an indication of notability. For one thing, the guideline on notability says that something may be included in an article even if it is not notable enough to have an article for itself. For another, if there is much discussion about something on the internet even if it has not been picked up by the more reliable press, it's difficult to say that it's not notable. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia should abolish its reliable source policy, there are Talk pages where you could make that argument. Regarding Ulteo, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination). Single-purpose editors who have no interests on Wikipedia besides publicizing Ulteo joined in that discussion. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I am coming from a different angle. I have no connection to Ulteo, and don't particularly care about the article, except that I think it should exist. I also made a point that it is notable. And somebody else added another reason that it's notable. Just because I didn't put forth the much greater effort of sourcing the material, doesn't mean it's not sourceable and there is no real doubt that it's true. It's not the quality of an article that decides whether it stays, but whether the article should be there. This one should. --Ezra Wax (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)