Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYS Linux

SYS Linux

SYS Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable Linux distro. Was tagged WP:CSD#A7 but that speedy deletion criterion does not apply as it is not a person, organization, or web content (except in the broadest interpretation of web content). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

• Delete - No independent reviews. People should keep in mind that this is different to SYSLINUX, which has something to do with a floppy disk linux image. Does not seem to exist outside the references included in the article, and Google has no external incoming links to the reference site. A google for '"Werner Landgraf" "SYS Linux" gets suspiciously few hits. -- Mark Chovain 09:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Reading the very last paragraph in the article, I guess the author mis-understood the purpose of Wikipedia somewhat, it's specifically not trying to be a directory on all possible Linux distributions. --Minimaki (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I would love to say keep in this article if there are reliable secondary sources that this article is important. By reading the distro is distributed by hand, put the download link, the 0.20 version was released 3 days ago!, etc., makes me feel that the subject is not yet ready to have a wikipedia article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I just don't see notability demonstrated here due to lack of reliable sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Life is not fair, and if secondary sources do not exist, neither is Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host nor is it a platform for advertising. We require reliable secondary sources for a reason: as Torchwood Who points out, Wikipedia is intended as a research tool. Oh, and writing about things in which you are personally involved is frowned upon. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with primary article editor

The arguments above are no justification for any deletion. SYS is a Linux distro what's good progressing, just with a new release being currently updated to mirror servers. My wiki article is short and characterizing the distro and its differences to other distros. So, deleting the contribution cannot be understand other than that it's not neutral but controlled by any interests. As said, in wiki are pages for comercial Linux distros, or such which just copy their programs, while SYS is no-comercial and I adapt, compile, pack all essential progs; its also running on my own server, see www.copaya.yi.org/info.php thus since long time and good tested in server use. There is also a short report about the distro and an mirror under www.distromania.com . The mirrors normally verify the function of Linux distros before put them for download.

OK, wiki is a site of any firma, what can do what they want, however, this and also the objectivity and imparciality on my own sites (and that of other friends) under this circumstances would justify a politics to forbid/delete links inclusive exhibit the reasons for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The LAST version is of 3 days ago, there had already earlier ones. On the 1st reference, www.copaya.yi.org/tgz, you can see the whole history: own adaptions/compilations/packages since '6/07, and renaming to SYS and install CDs since '11/07. With basical knowledge about informatics, one also can see from this site that the distro has good quality inclusive that all basical programs were adapted/compiled/packed by myself (kernel, last 2.6.25-rc5 , glibc 2.7 compiled to the last's kernel's headers, gcc 4.2.3 and 4.3 -- however 4.3 [not my package, the program itself] during my extensive tests has showed still problems with a few programs, so that I stayed with 4.2.3. In contrary to other Linux distros which copy the kernel and basical packages from Debian etc, Iself adapted/compiled/packed them for SYS. And its working good, cf www.copaya.yi.org/tgz. It's more that I was TOO detailed and careful - version 0.20 could have been released 1 month earlier, but I always wanted to wait one next slightly better/newer version of the Linux kernel ... Thus, this release is very careful prepared and tested, on my own 2 computers and computers and laptops of friends and neighbours.

Here is a discusion and test report by one person in a forum (the small 'tecnical' 'problems' - merely unsignificant error messages - during the instalation on v. 0.20-rc2 were corrected in the new version 0.20, alias such small problems occur on all distros): http://www.winfuture-forum.de/index.php?showtopic=134404 Alias, that person what made the test there, inclusive screenshots, seems to be satisfied because he just now is doing the painstaking work do download from my very-slow-conection server the new 0.20 version of the install CD (1st reference) so that later all other mirrors can download it from him.

The quoted download mirrors are on one university and one Max-Planck-Institut and the mirrors check at least roughly that the .iso 's work. That (at the beginning exclusively) the install DVDs are distributed by hand is absolutely no contra-indication -- but exactly in contrary, Iself saw / the users imediately came back to me during still occured problems, and I corrected them quickly. Just this interaction between programmers and users is something what's missing in Linux and why Linux progreeds so slowly

addition: I remove the link ... /X to the install-dvd .iso on the article and put it back in 2 days. I have only a low-speed connection, upload 15 KB/s. One person downloading the iso needs 5 days, two persons 10 days ... At the moment I want to let download only the mirror www.brickwedde/eu , from there the other mirrors and other people can download. Since I put the link in the article, a 2nd person downloads what slows down everything. This problem of my slow-speed-connection has nothing to do with the quality of SYS; also packages of programs can be downloaded, but please not the iso what pls after download from a mirror unsigned comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry, I dont see the need and Im not willingly to defend here my distro more than that I did above. On reliability and good function of SYS is no doubt, as I see from my own computer, that of neighbours/friends, and the quoted discusion forum; all known problems I corrected already. It's the logical structure of our world that it works in the 'parallel connection' mode - when one way is blocked, one passes just a little at the side. We have the freedom of the speach and of taking our own initiative to do something, independently if the mob is against, other people perhaps like and use it. wiki dont warrant the basical rights, trying to control anything -- but itself certainly dont want to be blocked or hindered but what want to control others. OK, wiki its appearently just a privat firma/site with doubtful reliability, and they may can do inside them site almost what they want. However just this have to be sublined, that they dont can usurpate the general impression of being something reliable in the sense that the omission of anything in wiki could mean that it would not be good or relevant.

And I use my right, to distribute my distro, independently what (perhaps unqualified or parcial) people think, and to defend it against direct or indirect discrimination. When wiki opt to delete my contribution, it's a condenation against themselves and against their reliability and objectivity. Then I will on my side forbid any link to wiki in my forums, and explain that this is necessary because of the lack of reliability, desrespect of fundamental rights (under them own justification that wiki is just something privat), entering of interests, and attempt to control the opinion and limit the progress (suggesting everybody to try to write any article in that wiki and make his own bad experiences), practics alias who are directly opposite to the open-source idea.

Nothing more to add here, by my side. wl —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Mr. Landgraf. I can't speak for anyone else, but let me explain where I stand. 1. Wikipedia is a research tool and as such we need to have the good practice of providing reliable third-party references for a good amount of our information. Without such "roadblocks" we would be unable to fact check and that would result in a poorer resource. 2. As for the notability of your project, that's debatable. Wikipedia's guideline on notability can be read here WP:N and it explains the need for notability and the types of resources that are commonly used to establish a subject's notability. It's a popular misconception that Wikipedia is an open zone for any information that anyone desires to publish. In fact it is quite the opposite, wikipedians (by consensus) frown upon original research unverified claims and promotional materials. 3. I don't believe anyone on wikipedia is attempting to stop you from distributing your software or debating the merits of your operating system, some of us simply feel that it hasn't reached a level of social impact that would warrant and article at this time. I hope that explains the situation better. Best of luck with your distribution.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want, I dont take care more of this discusion, whilst people try to delay my distro (probably Debian people which dont get forwards their own distro), I just disconnected my server, for adapting/compiling/packing the new kernel 2.6.25-rc6 and glibc again to its headers and some other updates, ready, running, and visible on my site copaya.yi.org/tgz. With this Im beginning preparing the next version 0.21 of my SYS distro. -- So long things are going, forwards, not backwards. Bye, bye, I anyway bring forwards my distro, but now I throw out anything what has to do with wiki and its use, and I inform everybody about the strange politics and practics. Im sorry that I spent my time and your time with your wiki wl addenda: I hope nobody have any objection against that I put a copy of my article and this discusion include into the SYS install dvd beginning with V. 0.21 , for the (hopefully satisfied) users which use my (hopefully) good working distro a good joke, and descrediting wiki proporcionally the opinions here are wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.174.41 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on distributing this discussion. Please check the wikipedia licensing agreement. Also, no one is debating whether your software is any good. There is plenty of good software that just doesn't meet out guidelines for inclusion. If reliable sources become available I urge you to attempt writing the article with the new references if the result of this AfD is delete. You may need to go to Deletion review, I'm not sure though.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All contributions to Wikipedia are GFDL so he's perfectly within his rights. However, I don't think he will be doing himself any favours by doing so to be honest: it will look a bit petulant if you ask me. Besides, I don't see a Linux distro with a home page that looks like this taking the world by storm any time soon... —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The distro has its page in the softpedia forum since january, where it appr. 350 people downloaded (only just now the link to the .iso's was removed because it's currently updated). Nobody wrote any bad comment, some people voted it and seems to find it good. An independent site is that of distromania, which also wrote a nice text and put screenshots of the distro. Finally, I gave a reference to a discusion forum were the distro also was tried out and someone put screenshots. So its simply wrong that SYS has no external references. My own site, because of the poor connection to Guiana-Caiena (only one undersea-cable, and often only connection via satelite) is more often down than working, and my biggest handicap is to get always the .iso to the first mirror (i have 4 mirrors for SYS). However that connection proplem don't mean that the quality of the distro would be bad. My site copaya.yi.org is a comunitary site for the neighbourship with plenty general tools; the SYS comments and download space via ftp or http is only a part inside. In fact, as explained, the distro birth from the observation of problems what have simple people with other Linux distros and the intention to make that more easy, together with the fact that I already compile/pack/actualize programs for maintain the server.

Thus, the politics of SYS is what I wrote short in one phrase in this wiki article. And SYS fullfills this goal very good. The installation runs automatically without any question, after it sets up automatically an ADSL connection (a next thing missed on ALL other distros except Kurumin -- what sense has it that many distros have plenty internet tools, but beginners dump it and reinstall Windows because there is no simple tool for get working quickly a connection ???). However, the 0.20-rc2 revealed it so good and friends lieve it with them to Macapa and Manaus in Brazil where they installed it, that I put it to download. Some small, boring problems (i.e. irrelevant warning messages) were removed meanwhile. I try out all new distros and I feel / I made SYS so that Im sure that is a big progress for beginners come to Linux (here friends which before never used Linux, uses the install DVDs for give/install it for next friends). At the same time, as I use it on my server, I keep it working also for all more qualified work, inclusive server and development. You can see via copaya.yi.org/info.php (or in the repository copaya.yi.org/tgz) that I just used it for compile the new kernel 2.6.24-rc6 and glibc-2.7 against its headers, and thats running immediately on my server. I install it besides of my own computer on that of friends, so Im in direct contact with users and when something dont work I correct it immediately.

I think the fact that a distro is until now 'unformal', without big propaganda or comercialization, dont make it useless for wiki, when wiki want to relect relevant and new tendencies. At least here in Guyana-Cayenne, SYS is the most extended Linux distro. And it's not only a children-play-thing, but as I explained, already good mature, even if an install DVD has only since 4 months.

Yes, its correct that wiki can have its arbitrary politics, but then anyway one cannot give to wiki any authority or reliability, inclusive one cannot see / permit references to wiki than something reliable. I see that in wiki are registred plenty 'distros' which are simple remasterings of SLAX or of Ubuntu etc, compiling / adapting no programs but just copy them from others. I dont know the exact politics of wiki, but I think that, when such things are registered, then SYS should be it too, because in many points its much inferior. Only f.ex. in comparison with Sabayon Linux (which dont compile themselv essential programs): that is compacted 4,4 G , uncompacted 9,5 GB the half of which documents, the installation needs about 1 hour, the instalation is complicated and often one fall in a loop (f.ex. for the 3d-or-not-video-adaption). SYS has 4,4 G too, but better compacted what's uncompacted 16,7 GB, the instalation needs on my server 17 min, automatically, no problem. But Sabayon has a wiki page ...

The right to exclude wiki-citations from contributions to my sites I have anyway, and also to advice that when persons repeatedly use such references or when this is iminent. For this is irrelevant, alias, the current problem, any contribution of me to wiki, them status or licences by wiki, but only my subjective opinion / impression about the reliability of wiki. The right for explain more detailed the attempt to include an article about SYS in wiki, is depending if - by intention by wiki, or factually - the most relevant distros are registered and the discrimination could make a bad impression about the distro. Generally I condemn any kind of pseudo-autorities, -registers, -fiscalization on open-source what could result in a positive (inclusion of only selected) or negative (rejection) discrimination and see that as justification for an explanation.

—Preceding unsigned 

comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I again assure you that no one has singled you out. If there are other articles about distros which are in the same class as yours they will eventually make it to AfD.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again with the current problem, arise more and more the question of the legimity of the open things and a government of the mob compared to privat firma politics. We are generally subject of avaliations -- but these have to be made by the USERS, not by any other people with different interests. Latest when someone would want to hinder or forbid wiki, its owners would cry and fall in contradiction to them own politics to control others. Collective things potentially violates the freedom and basical rights, so that perhaps its better, after the '30-years-war' of open things, come back to private/property institutions and firmas, with the repression of the alternative things and an ordered situation inclusive the protection of people which create anything against others which only know to critize. The situation animate me to write in my forum an article about open source and the P¨obel.

W.r.t. my article, do what you want, because now in my eyes wiki is completely disqualified. Insofar people dont know that situation and thus could get a bad opinion about my distro, I also tell them that. Now I spend my time for more senseful things; i'm just updating some progs, making even faster the installer beside of substitute the new kernel, and hoping tomorrow or after-tomorrow with a 0.21-rc1 CD going in direction to the next release.

Did you say it's had independent reviews? If so, can you give us some links to them -- that's what decides these matters, and it's all that we're asking for. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Softpedia and a few other links mentions and the reviews are just people commenting or summaries of the what the download is, not really reliable sources. But if some exist I'm more than willing to change my mind. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there have not many independent reports, but at least 2 have. 1) One in the winfuture forum, see above. In that forum sometimes I write contributions, and I also opened a thread informing about my distro, begging it be tested. One person wrote about it, tested it with two virtual machines, reported, and brought screenshots. That version 0.20-rc2 is working good, with exception of some cosmetic problems like warning/error messagens during the instalation what one have to ignore strictly (this is normal on -rc or beta versions). Thats anyway an independent report. (And the same person is just now doing the suffering work to download from my slow server the 0.20 iso, he would not do it when he would think that the distro isnt good) 2) Another independent report is that by distromania, they dont wrote many but they wrote and made screenshots, also they made a download mirror. 3) In softpedia, Iself wrote the report, but the redaction of that site alterated it. I dont know exactly if the redaction of softpedia tried out the installation, but normally they testing all new distros, and from their changes of the text I think so. According to their counter, appr. 350 persons downloaded it from the mirrors, and I think some 15 voted it as good. A detailed report nobody wrote, but on the other side, when a program would have bad malfunction, normally some of the users advice and softpedia would retract the program or write an advice under 'known problems', this didnt happen. On the 0.20 version, all these cosmetic problems were cleared, some software I throwed out and other put in, and the installation speed was still improved. Since 4 days one mirror is downloading the new version and one DVD yesterday I sent by post to another mirror. On the other side, since yesterday evening I´m testing the last -rc kernel , recompiled glibc, and some other new progs and new versions and when this is ok (the -rc kernels never give problems) then perhaps next night I make a maintenance version (essentially only updating these progs). Thus, there are at least TWO indepdent reports, that in the winfuture forum, and that by distromania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those are not reliable sources. Forums and even sometimes Blogs are not considered generally reliable to wikipedia's standards. Also, the distromania article looks suspiciously self-written. You do have a rather unique english writing style.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To distromania I sent the same informations like to softpedia, they wroted the report, even if they take one or other part from my information. They were whom first downloaded SYS 0.20-rc2 from me what needed about 1 week and they spent the little time to install/test it, inclusive for make screenshots.

OK what wiki keeps for reliable, they decide, and what I keep for reliable, I decide, and obviously I cannot keep as reliable what keep as unreliable something I know thats reliable. I include a copy of my proposed article into the next dvds and of this dicusion -- then the users of SYS will immediately see what's unreliable, SYS or wiki ...  :) When wiki is not only a playground for trolls and mongoloids, then wiki must assume such a responsibility for its politics and decisions and support such a flagrante verification of its [un]reliability.

A big part of exchange of informations or even publications occures today in the internet - inclusively by forums and blogs. I agree that a part of that is fictious. But this depends on the matter, if you are in a players forum or f.ex. in a software forum. The whole open-source software development and its discusion occurs today in internet, what inclusive warrants its quickness , flexibility , and formlessness f.ex. for correct quickly errors. Also the wiki circus is nothing else than an initiative by a private firma 'what almost can write/do what they want' (at least that's quoted as justification when useful for them). wiki isn't better than any blog, probably even less reliable because censured. But generally, when you internet sources keep as unreliable, then it's correct to keep as unreliable wiki too

All this attempts cannot hinder SYS progress. After I tested the new kernel and progs, and during still continuing testing, runs already the .lzma compaction of the maintenance version 0.21 -- small corrections/additions like that discussion I can include in the post-install or first-run correction folder ...  :) The Debian or SuSE people dont get stopping my distro

[CODE]

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10438 2008-03-17 16:52 LIESMICH -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1232 2008-01-19 21:29 SYS_10.png -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17321020416 2008-03-18 12:26 SYS_Linux.ext3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 887 2008-02-28 05:48 SYS_Linux.ext3.LIESMICH -rw------- 1 root root 1431306253 2008-03-18 15:18 SYS_Linux.ext3.lzma -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 598 2008-03-07 06:01 SYS_Linux.ext3.lzma.corrections* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 654 2008-03-14 02:54 SYS_Linux.ext3.lzma.firstrun* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37198 2008-02-10 13:06 auto.SlackBuild* -r--r--r-- 1 root root 55 2008-02-10 10:29 autorun.inf drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 2008-03-18 12:09 boot/ -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 180 2008-02-19 13:40 mkbootcd* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5388 2008-03-18 05:25 mkcdiso* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 905 2008-02-23 19:16 mkpackage* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 128 2008-03-18 12:10 scr -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 61 2008-03-18 12:10 scr0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 694 2008-02-28 06:00 slack-desc drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2008-03-18 05:27 to_copy/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2008-03-18 05:42 to_install/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2008-02-23 21:12 to_upgrade/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2008-02-28 05:40 to_upgrade_firstrun/

[/CODE]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by W.landgraf (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

Please stop accusing wikipedians of working for your competitors. "The Debian or SuSE people dont get stopping my distro" is a bold statement and unless you can back it up please don't use it as an argument.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)