Talk:EyeOS

This article wasn't advertisment.

This is not blatant advertising

eyeOS is free software and provided at no cost, this article was created some years ago, and its maintained by the users of the project, if you don't like some parts of the article, you can help improving it, but I think that its not fair to drastically remove it. Teddybearnow (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open souce can be a business model. EyeOS offers professional services for their product. Psychcf (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on many software applications in Wikipedia. Are they blatant advertising just because they could make money from it too?

I don't understand whats the problem with this article, could anyone explain, please? Teddybearnow (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is an advertisment and clearly biased. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I don´t see it either. The article could clearly be improved, time and participation are needed, but I do not see it as blatant advertising, if this is advertisement, then we should be thinking of deleting the Windows Vista article, the Mac OS x article, and many more. Instead of deleting articles such as this one we should improve it. I think it has been a really big mistake to have made a speedy deletion. --Francisco Valverde (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just giving an argument against how you can't advertise something that's open source. Even if it isn't advertising, it certainly is biased, and is not encyclopedia-worthy. 167.206.224.77 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then send it to AfD!!! Let's see what the community thinks. Maybe we could even get User:Psychcf to comment. -- Swerdnaneb 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe we could get you to comment? 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those pages have a NPOV and are not advertisments.

84.13.214.118 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ok, so to solve the problem with the article, can anyone explain whats the sentence or paragraph that is writted as an adverstiment, or from a non-neutral point of view. Just to fix it. I'm getting tired of discuss this, so, if someone can tell where exactly is the problem, I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybearnow (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't you just stop removing stuff without debate? 84.13.214.118 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm waiting to listen where is the problem with this article, you keep adding this messages about neutrality problems or something else, but you DON'T explain WHERE is the problem with the article. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the criticism section because it talks about technical problems in this project that has not been proved in any real study or mentioned in any external reference site, Please, if you re-add this section, add also a reference to a newspaper or magazine that talks about this "problem" Teddybearnow (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I re-added the mention to the eyeOS was one of the 10 finalists in sourceforge awards because it is true, and there is a reference about it, in the website of sourceforge, manager of the awards. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not an award if it's not been won. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, i solved it changing the name of the sections, Thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        About the scalability problems or design problems, references need to talk about eyeOS and this problems, not about this sciences at all, it seems to be a personal opinion, and this is not allowed in wikipedia. I'm searching for a acceptable site with a reference about this problems, but i'm unable to find it, please, could you provide some information about serious investigations on that? thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, it's not an opinion, it's fact. First off, it's clearly observable that eyeOS uses flat files, and makes requests to the server every time a button is clicked. These are observable facts and do not require specific references. Now, I do have to prove that database servers are more scalable then flat files, etc. I've provided references for that. 167.206.224.77 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]