Jump to content

Talk:Black Lab Linux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meters (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 20 March 2014 (→Changes proposed: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconLinux Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notable

As is, the page is not notable. It may be notable if someone could provide the story about how Yellow Dog Linux and Terra Soft Solutions evolved out of Black Lab Linux, especially if there was controversy involved, Cuvtixo 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

This edit needlessly reignites the GNU/Linux naming controversy, and removes the stub tag. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Black Lab Linux is now owned, distributed and developed by PC/OpenSystems LLC. Being as though we are now the copyright owners of Black Lab Linux we would like for ldavidson121975 edit to be reverted back and that be used. We contacted Mr. Axl Matulic today regarding this and he said that whoever told me to start a new article was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertojdohnert (talk • contribs) 00:04, March 19, 2014‎

Please sign your talk page edits with 4 tildes.
I undid the edits, as can easily be seen from the edit history. I don't know who Axl Matulic is or why you would think he would be able to make such a decision without discussing the issue with the editor who raised the issue. You didn't raise the issue on the talk page as I suggested, or on my talk page, and neither did whichever editor Axl Matulic is.
As I said on the first editor's talk page here "The problem is that you are trying to rewrite the article to cover a different subject. Black Lab Linux is about the specific 1999 distribution, not any other distribution that happens to have the same name." After a username change the edit was reinserted and I replied here "Just because your company has now made a distribution with the same name is no reason to shoehorn your information into the original article. Create a new article if the new distrubution is notable, and create a disambiguation page if necessary." I then suggested that you take it up on the talk page if you disagreed, but you did not. I see that you did ask a question on the second user's talk page here about how to link your new article to the original. Sorry I missed it, but it was 25 days after I left my message and I don't monitor other people's talk pages for replies to my posts for that long.
Why don't I think this material belongs? The first editor said "My company last year acquired the rights to the name Black Lab Linux which was used back in 1999 for a PowerPC based Linux distro." The desired changes to the article include "Black Lab Linux in its current incarnation does not have any relationship with Terrasoft Solutions release of Black Lab Linux." So, it still sounds to me as if your Black Lab Linux has nothing to do with the topic of the original article, other than happening to share the same distribution name. I could be wrong. If so, please explain it to me, as I've already suggested. Until you do, this is content dispute, not a question of a conflict of interest edit. I appreciate that you are following Wikipedia's procedures by changing your original commercial username to a personal one, and by asking for a conflict of interst edit (and I don't object to the edit on COI grounds).
I still think that the best solution is a separate article for you distribution with a disambiguation. If the other Black Lab Linux is no longer active/supported I would support renaming the old distribution's article and giving your distribution the Black Lab Linux article title (with a link to the old article's new title). Perhaps the original article could even be deleted. If your new article is not accepted I don't see a problem clarifying the original article to distinguish between the article topic and your Black Lab Linux, but not with the amount of detail you are trying to have added about your distribution. If the article isn't about your distribution, there's no need to specify the four distinct variants of your distribution, for example. Meters (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I am the "Axl Matulic" he has been communicating with, on OTRS.
I made no decision, I simply expressed my opinion that you were mistaken. The thrust of my advice was to engage you on the talk page to come to an agreement, and I am gratified to see that is happening, but did not expect to see my name bandied about as an authoritative decision-maker.
Involving myself in discussion here puts me in a difficult position because OTRS typically does not resolve content disputes. Nevertheless, now that I've been pulled in....
It seems inappropriate to fork off another article about essentially the same subject, since the product, intellectual property, etc. has now changed ownership. That would be an unnecessary WP:FORK and likely merged back into this article. The history of ownership should be an integral part of this article, should it not? I suggest a modification of the article that retains a description of the original product with a mention that ownership has been transferred. I fail to see how doing so will reduce the quality of the article rather than improve it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so if I make this change, will it be allowed to take affect rather than being reverted back? Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what the change is. If it's what you propose below, as an addition rather than a replacement, I don't see any problem with it, but I would like Meters to weigh in.
If you have a conflict of interest, it is best that you don't make the change yourself, but wait until others agree. The change will either be made for you, or you will be asked to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

The new article was refused because of an article with a like name. This one. Several editors have said to update this article and not start a new one. So my question is this and I will let Roberto know. What information is needed to get this article edited and updated to include the current incarnation of Black Lab Linux. Terrasoft Solutions does not exist anymore so the PowerPC release is no longer developed or distributed. Ldavidson121975 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with articles having similar names. The reason given was "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Black Lab Linux)" not because it had a similar name. I can't tell why this reason was used without seeing the now deleted article, but if you just copied the original article over with your additions rather than creating an article about your release it would explain it. If that's wasn't the problem I suggest you contact the users who reviewed and deleted the proposed new article. It may have been a mistake. Meters (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it was a brand new article with none of the original material from this article and the reason given BY the editor was because this article existed. Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they would have deleted the article on that basis if the original material was gone, but the reason given in the deletion notice was as I quoted, not because the article existed. Here it is in full:
23:33, March 18, 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Lab Linux (PC/OpenSystems LLC) (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Black Lab Linux)
As I said, take it up with the admin. Meters (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes proposed

These are the changes I propose to make and would like to know if this will be allowed to take effect.

In 2013, PC/OpenSystems LLC [1] released a distribution named Black Lab Linux [2] after a dispute with the USPTO [3] Black Lab Linux in its current incarnation does not have any relationship with Terrasoft Solutions release of Black Lab Linux. PC/OpenSystems LLC's release of Black Lab Linux is based on Ubuntu Linux.[4] [5]

References
  1. ^ http://www.pc-opensystems.org
  2. ^ http://www.blacklablinux.org
  3. ^ http://news.softpedia.com/news/Patent-Trolls-Kill-OS-4-OpenLinux-the-Black-Lab-Linux-Distro-Is-Born-402468.shtml
  4. ^ http://www.linux.com/directory/Distributions/black-lab-linux
  5. ^ http://lwn.net/Distributions/#nontech
External links

Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this being proposed as an addition or a replacement? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the addition, and that's part of the problem. By leavign eh rest of the article as is, and then adding a section emphasizing that ht ere is no connection between the new release and the original release it sounds like this does not belong in the dsame article. If they have the rights to the orignal name, then the article needs to be completely rewritten to show the history of the named distributions. You cna't have it both ways. If thats teh way it goes then the old release becomes just an item in teh history section. I'm fine with that, particularly becaus ethe old release does not seem particularly notable anyways. Meters (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Lab_Linux&oldid=600515038"