Talk:Zawinski's law of software envelopment
 | The contents of the Zawinski's law of software envelopment page were merged into Jamie Zawinski on August 15, 2011 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Jamie Zawinski. |
I do not know whether I was the first person to come up with the joke about all programs expanding to read mail. I can confirm that I thought of it independently when I was a student at Harvard. (So it must have been some time between 1983 and 1987.) At the time I had Emacs and readnews in mind. The only reason that I picked MIT is that it was easy to suppose, at least for a joke, that geeky Internet software was typically developed at MIT. (It was especially easy to suppose at Harvard!)
Greg Kuperberg 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- (I moved the following from the article. — LazyEditor (talk))
- I'm pretty sure I heard Jamie utter this phrase before 1989. I worked with him from 1986 until sometime in early to mid 1989 after which point I had very little contact with him. 65.121.28.16 25 August 2006
Slashdotted! Prepare for vandalism. :)
- slashdotters dont vandalize hahaha yeah right
Is Google a useful example?
[edit]A past edit by 87.196.60.115 removed Google from the list of examples (Mozilla, Emacs), with the comment google is not a program. I actually think Google is a useful example. I admit that it isn't a program in the traditional (Web 1.0?) sense, but the two products GMail and Google Desktop both both do mail. With the changing meaning of 'program', I wonder what other wikipedian's views are on this? I also appeal to the name of the law referring to 'software' giving it a very general flavour. DLeonard 05:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- "...referring to 'software'..." I hear that the next Gorillaz CD will include an email client in its extras.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.27.216.35 (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
THIS REDIRECT GOES TO A PAGE THAT DOES NOT MENTION THE SUBJECT OF THE REDIRECT
[edit]So can someone who knows WTF this is about add the info to the target article... Stub Mandrel (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the target page used to have a subsection 'Zawinski's law of software envelopment' (see here) but it was removed a few days ago (diff) by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs). Anyway, there's a relevant AFD from 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zawinski's law of software envelopment that ended as "Merge". I gueass that's a (weak) argument to restore the removed content. – Tea2min (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- One cannot restore inadequately referenced content. Find proper references, and we are good. So far all I saw was undue promotion of an average software engineer. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Restored. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- One cannot restore inadequately referenced content. Find proper references, and we are good. So far all I saw was undue promotion of an average software engineer. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)