Talk:SCO Skunkware

Lockheed Skunk Works

I can't produce a verifiable source to document the following but I was there when it happened and it's true. Lockheed sued SCO over the use of the term "Skunkware". The suit was settled out of court with SCO retaining the right to use the term "SCO Skunkware" as long as everywhere it was used it was accompanied by the following disclaimer:

"The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and SCO Skunkware are not related to, affiliated with or licensed by the famous Lockheed Martin Skunk Works (R), the creator of the F-117 Stealth Fighter, SR-71, U-2, Venturestar(tm), Darkstar(tm), and other pioneering air and spacecraft."

I put this disclaimer at the bottom of all of the Skunkware web pages which number in the tens of thousands. Subsequently a search for terms like "Lockheed" or "Stealth Fighter" would produce search results that were almost entirely Skunkware web pages. After a few years of this Lockheed gave SCO permission to use "SCO Skunkware" without the disclaimer and it was removed (not by me).

So, should this be added to the page and, if so, how ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I am starting this section for a discussion of the notability of SCO Skunkware after a notability tag was added by Captain Nemo III. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See below in the section on "Article Proposed For Deletion" for a discussion of notability. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Proposed For Deletion

Captain Nemo III proposed this article for deletion. I am removing that message as I object to the article's proposed deletion. I'll also try to improve the article after reviewing the objections, if any, raised in this discussion. I have not gone through this process before so please inform me of any guidelines or policies with which I may need to become more familiar.

The initial concern raised by Nemo is: I don't think that Skunware [sic] is notable. I suggest that the contents of this page should be merged with the article on the SCO_Group. This article has no references outside SCO's own website. Ultimately, it is only a collection of open-source software that is only of interest to users of SCO's products Captain Nemo III (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My objections are as follows:

Notability can be discussed and resolved. In fact, SCO Skunkware is notable in that it was an early pioneering effort to bring open source software into the realm of business computing. It is notable historically and notable for the size, breadth, and depth of its distribution. For years SCO controlled over 80% of the Unix on Intel market. Skunkware was pretty much the only exposure this market had to open source software and, as such, provided an important initial impetus to the acceptance and adoption of open source software in the small and medium business market.

I'll provide additional notability rationale in the Notability section above but the point here is that notability alone should not be reason for deletion without discussion. Skunkware is notable.

Likewise with a proposed merger with another article. Let's discuss that and not hastily delete an article. As for Nemo's suggestion that it be merged with the SCO Group article, that doesn't make sense as Skunkware existed for over a decade before the SCO Group came into existence. There is not article which could encompass Skunkware and into which it would be properly merged. Not SCO Group, not Santa Cruz Operation, not OpenServer, not UnixWare, since Skunkware transcends each of these.

Finally, do I detect some anti-SCO feeling here ? Understandable, I suppose, but not good reason for deletion. Shouldn't we also be calling for the deletion of FreeBSD Ports ? SCO Skunkware is not "only a collection of open-source software that is only of interest to users of SCO's products". It is one of the largest and oldest collections of ported and prepackaged open source software and arguably of interest to not only users of SCO products but anyone interested in the evolution, distribution, history, rise in popularity, and adoption of open source software. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Captain Nemo III restored the prod tag stating that an article's creator should not remove this template. However, in reviewing Wikipedia policies I see that in WP:PROD it states: Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). Clearly, the article's creator is allowed to remove this template in dispute of the proposed deletion. Further, at WP:Deletion policy it states: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag.

I am again going to remove the prod template from this article in dispute of the proposed deletion. Please comment on the talk page. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I misread the policy. The restriction on removing the tag only applies to speedy deletion. My apologies.

Re: merging, if merging with SCO_Group is inappropriate, then how about merging with Openserver and Unixware? There is no use for SCO Skunkware outside these platforms is there?

I don't think that your claims to notability as an independent article have any merit. "The only exposure to open source" -- what about all the very well known open and well used source tools such as Sendmail, BIND, etc..? If Skunkware has historical significance, then how about some external references that show this?

I don't appreciate the attempted ad-hominem: accusing me of bias. Perhpas you should consider how WP:COI applies to your editing of the article? Captain Nemo III (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging, if appropriate, would arguably need to be done on many articles including SCO OpenServer, UnixWare, Xenix, Santa Cruz Operation, SCO Group, Lxrun, and Web desktop. Merging seems like a tedious and redundant poor compromise only appropriate if SCO Skunkware is viewed as not notable.

With regards to notability, there are independent external references cited currently (the two SCO World magazine articles). These citations point to the archived versions of these articles but could simple reference the date, page, and title of the magazine (making it much more difficult to verify as one would have to find a nearly 10 year old copy of a magazine whose publisher has gone out of business). However, I would say SCO Skunkware more appropriately satisfies the criterion for WP:Notability (web). In addition to the historical significance of one of the first and largest publicly accessible archives of open source software, many independent sites have republished the content. SCO World magazine also distributed the Skunkware CD-ROM further satisfying this criteria. Finally, if SCO Skunkware is deemed to be not notable and appropriate for either merger or deletion then it seems the same can be said of FreeBSD Ports, MacPorts, and other platform specific package repositories in the "Free package management systems" category.

So this sorta gets me to what was perceived as an ad-hominem attack on your bias. I apologize for asking if there were any anti-SCO feelings on your part. My intention here and previously is to point out that a platform specific repository is not, in and of itself, not notable. The fact that it is SCO should not matter any more than the fact that the FreeBSD Ports collection is specifically targeted for FreeBSD systems or Debian package distributions are targeted for Debian systems. I take it the answer to my question is "no" you do not have any anti-SCO feeling. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is not if a platform specific repository is "not ... not notable". The question is: is this platform specific repository notable? I don't think that there is any verifiable evidence that it is. Even the copy of the magazine that you cite was only relevant to SCO systems -- in other words, nothing extends outside the SCO (Santa Cruz and TSG) world.

Regardiing merging, you first argued that it was not appropriate to merge Skunkware with the SCO Group, now you are saying that it should be? Anyway, I don't think "difficulty of merging" trumps "not notable", of which, IMHO, you have made bald assertions, but singularly failed to show any verifiable evidence. Captain Nemo III (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm only arguing that we should apply the same criteria to SCO Skunkware as has been applied to FreeBSD Ports and other similar repositories of open source software. I provided examples of fulfillment of the criteria for notability as detailed in WP:Notability (web). Certainly the article can and should be bolstered by additional references, citations, and content. However, I believe notability has been established according to Wikipedia guidelines for notability. You seem to be claiming that the SCO World magazine citations are not independent 3rd party reliable and verifiable sources because of the nature of the content and/or readership of the magazine. Is that your assertion ?

Even disregarding the SCO World articles and redistribution of the CD-ROM content, Note #7 at WP:Notability (web) states: Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. Many independent online sites distribute SCO Skunkware. Criteria 1 and 3 of WP:Notability (web) are both satisfied.

As for merging, I do not believe simply merging with the SCO Group (as initially suggested) would be appropriate. My point was that a merge would necessarily be with multiple existing Wikipedia articles as well as possible new articles. I am not arguing that difficulty of merge trumps notability. Nor am I saying that it should be merged. I do not believe merging is appropriate. A merge should only be considered if notability cannot be established. Notability has been established and will be strengthened by additional citations and references.

Finally, could you elaborate on your claim that I have "made bald assertions, but singularly failed to show any verifiable evidence" ? Yes, the claim that "Skunkware was pretty much the only exposure this market had to open source software" may fall in that category. You are correct to point out that Bind, Sendmail, and other open source components have been at the heart of Unix prior to the advent of SCO Skunkware. However, most of the open source components in traditional Unix distributions were so far under the hood as to be invisible to most business Unix users. This claim (only exposure) is not reflected in the article and would be difficult if not impossible to verify. Are there other unverified "bald assertions" you are referring to ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you make assertions of notifiability, but fail to provide any evidence to back up your claim. Looking at your claim of multiple indepedent distributors -- where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence of multiple independent published works about Skunkware? Note that this evidence must itself meet Wikipedia'a criteria -- and I doubt that the text you show on SCO's ftp site can meet this, since it surely is self-published (you may not have written it, but I think you could be said to be publishing it). How can anyone verify its accuracy? This is my point about "bald assertions" -- it is very easy to make wild claims, but what is needed is independent, verifiable and reliable sources. You haven't provided any.

The articles on BSD ports are more notable because they discuss a packaging system. Skunkware is merely a collection of packaged software, using existing packaging systems.

You make claims of historical significance, yet fail to provide any evidence of this -- only evidence that Skunkware is an old concept. old != Notable.

You claim meeting criterion 1 based on multiple distributions (Note 7), this seems rather odd to me because criterion 1 describes the topc (in this case Skunkware) being the subject of multiple independent published works. In other words, there should be multiple articles about Skunkware, not just multiple copies of Skunkware. Captain Nemo III (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how productive this discussion is at this point. Correct me if I am misreading you but you seem to be attacking my character without specifics and making spurious arguments without constructive advice. That is, repeatedly asserting that I am making "bald assertions" and now "wild claims" without "independent, verifiable and reliable sources". Yet I have provided independent, verifiable and reliable sources and intend to continue to provide additional ones. Claiming that SCO World magazine "surely is self-published" is not contributing anything positive to this discussion but simply imputes ill will, deception, or blatant incompetence on my activities here. It further devalues your reliability as an editor since it's apparent you know little about this and are just making outrageous claims. I will scan the editorial credits of an example SCO World magazine and make that available so you can follow up if you like but this is just a waste of time.

You claim that the FreeBSD Ports collection is notable while SCO Skunkware is not, simply because FreeBSD Ports is a packaging system. I'm a little mystified by that line of reasoning. Could you provide some rationale for why typing "make", downloading the source, compiling it and installing the resulting binaries is notable ? Which Wikipedia guidelines for notability would I consult to learn more about this ? SCO Skunkware provides media images suitable for installation with the SCO Software Manager which can be configured for network installs as well. Further, the SCO Skunkware CD-ROM distributions contain installation images which have been mounted on many systems around the world and used for network installs. I have a great amount of respect for FreeBSD, the Ports collection, and Jordan Hubbard. However, I fail to see the distinction wrt notability simply because of the packaging mechanisms in use in the two systems.

As for Note 7 at WP:Notability (web) apparently we disagree on the interpretation and may need an additional opinion. It seems pretty simple to me that being mirrored, mounted, and redistributed by independent 3rd parties would lend further credence to notability.

So, it appears we have reached an impasse in our ability to work together to come to some sort of agreement on how to improve this article. I am unfamiliar with the arbitration process but would be happy to learn. I am not interested in pursuing a discussion laced with character attack and innuendo. If you would like to continue this discussion I would ask that you replace remarks such as "bald assertions" and "wild claims" with something like "you state that <some assertion>" and "could you provide a source for <some claim>". Be specific. Which statements of mine are you referring to ? I'm still a little clueless as to why SCO World is not a verifiable, independent, reliable source. It was a widely distributed industry magazine with a great degree of credibility and respect.

Finally, would you please just answer this question:

Are you anti-SCO ?

Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You ask me if I am anti-SCO. My response is to point you to WP:AGF and to suggest that you look at my edit history.

On unsupported assertions: let's look at the sources you quote: every external source (except the SCO World articles) is on a SCO Web or FTP site (which means they don't meet WP's requirements for sources). SCO World may have written some articles about Skunkware, but is it a reliable, verifiable source? Even if it is, what other sources are there about Skunkware? One source is not "multiple independent".

Apart from the SCO World articles, please show me exactly what independent sources you quote, because I don't see any in the article. "Independent" would rule out anything on SCO's web or ftp sites.

You don't agree with me about Ports, fine. A much better example would be the sunfreeware site, which does not have its own article on Wikipedia. Furthermore a Google for "sunfreeware -site:sunfreeware.com sun" produces over 70,000 hits, while a similar search for "skunkware -site:sco.com sco" produces less than 18000 hits.

I cannot imagine how you think it acceptable to accuse me of character assassination and innuendo and then finish with your question whether am I anti-SCO. Please review WP:COI and WP:OR and think about how they apply to this article. Captain Nemo III (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:AGF. That's a good read and an excellent principle. I have not yet checked out your edit history but is it a violation of the assume good faith principle to ask another editor if they are biased about a specific subject ? As you probably know SCO is a very controversial company and many people really hate everything associated with it. I thought the question was relevant but you do not wish to answer it and I'll assume good faith on your part (but why not just answer the question ?).

I have added several new references. Hopefully these sources are more to your liking. I also changed the SCO World references to point to the archived scoworld.com where possible and added an "about SCO World" reference if you want to verify its independence.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your statements. This last post did inspire me to dig up additional references and move others. So, that's constructive. I felt you were vigorously attacking me but perhaps you are simply asking for additional verifiable independent reliable sources. I'm still concerned but willing to move on in good faith. The statistics you quote are interesting. Is it possible to retrieve statistics like that from an earlier date - like 1995 or 1999 - with archive.org or some other facility ? Further complicating matters is that many of the SCO systems that would reference things like Skunkware are often behind firewalls inside of corporate intranets and/or not easily accessible (e.g. banks in China and Russia, the Nasdaq stock exchange, McDonalds, ...). Many of these corporate sites do not allow robot traversal. Does this effect these statistics ?

Do you still feel notability is not established ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been too busy to read and respond properly, but I note that some of the references do little more than mention Skunkware and I don't think they add any real value. Captain Nemo III (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Each of the references is intended to establish and verify one or more of the statements in the article. The length of the reference did not seem as important as the relevance to the point in the article, verifiability, reliability, and independence of the 3rd party. Some are extensive and exclusively about Skunkware (Free Network Software from SCO) while others simply establish notability (Debian is redistributing Skunkware ISO images) and one is there to establish the independence of SCO World.

When you get time please go through these as thoroughly as you like and provide feedback. I feel notability has been established and the Notability template can be removed unless you have further objections. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Skunkware CD Image

You claim this image as "self made". Obviously I don't know what was in your employment contract with the Santa Cruz Operation, but most contracts assign ownership of anything that you create that is related to your employment to the employer. Are you sure that you own this image rather than it being owned by your employer? Captain Nemo III (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't sign or agree to employment contracts with any such viral clause. Even at the University of California I struck that clause from my research agreement. The UC does attempt to enforce such an agreement but, thus far, SCO has not requested or required anything of this nature. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox software

User:Frap edited the infobox moving the caption to the "caption =" entry but it doesn't show up anymore (at least in Flock). Why not ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)