Talk:Terry A. Davis/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Terry A. Davis. 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 1 |
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Mostly favorable reviews"
In the introduction, it states that TempleOS "was released in 2013 to mostly favorable reviews." It is my understanding that this was not the case, and the OS was widely panned for being unattractive, unintuitive, and outdated, with the only praise being for Terry himself having been able to create an entire OS from scratch on his own. I'm attempting to find a source to back that up, but there seems to be fairly little discussion of the OS itself around the time of its release- most discussion revolves around Terry himself, or the few genuinely novel features of the OS. Regardless, if we were to keep the current wording in that paragraph I feel that it should be sourced; I can't imagine anyone looking at a screenshot of TempleOS and believing that it reviewed well.
Cosinity (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is sourced. The supporting text is: "
As he unveiled his creation online, the reactions were mostly sympathetic.
" [1] "Favorable" is an acceptable synonym of "sympathetic", per definitions offered by Google ("pleasant or agreeable
)" and Dictionary.com ("looking upon with favor
"). The News Stack article also quotes positive comments in articles by TechRepublic and OSNews. There are no other articles I can find about the OS, nor can I find much criticism except on forums like Reddit, which are not WP:RS. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The actual quote on the page is: "It was released to public derision[4] contrasted by mostly favorable reviews from members of the tech community.[2]" OS News source used is part of the "public derision," - Quote - "This combination of TempleOS’s amateurish approach and Terry’s unfortunate outbursts have resulted in TempleOS being often regarded as something to be mocked, ignored, or forgotten. Many people have done some or all of those things, and it’s understandable why." OS News review is not favorable to the OS, and they are a Tech Source. The Truth: 1. Nobody has created more programs, nobody except Terry knows "Holy C." 2. The OS is, "amateurish," there are no possible ways a Business can use it. I am "sympathetic," I have tried TempleOS, I am into Operating Systems, yet the only person who can really use this program is a C Programming expert. 3. The OS will be ignored, and forgotten, "and it is understandable why." Try it out! Why use only one other source, and conclude that there is "mostly favorable reviews..."?Easeltine (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed this per the discussion above and to closer match what appears on TempleOS currently. Since this article is about Davis, specifically, I think it's reasonable to cite reviews that talk about his accomplishment in building a hobby OS (I'm not 100% sure there's a notability justification for having two separate articles but that's what we've got right now). I've removed any mention of how things were "initially received" as both cited sources are non-contemporary to either the initial release or official launch of the OS; further, neither provides much in the way of evidence for broader opinion. The OSNews one should probably be amended to point directly to the source it links. I've also removed the contrast between how the "public" and "tech community" reacted to the OS as I can't find any meaningful distinction between those groups—pretty sure anyone remotely interested in a niche OS launch qualifies as part of the "tech community." Dylan (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)