Talk:Smoothwall: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:51, 25 February 2007

Linux Unassessed

	Linux portal This 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Origins

The article reads as a little uncritical and gushing - wasn't there quite a lot of controversy over the 'business model' a few years back? (I use both smoothwall and ipcop by the way). Linuxlad 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it reads as gushing, to me it seems to remain from a NPOV. However as far as the orgins go I'm not sure about that because I only started using smoothwall semi recently (for about 1 year) so I don't know much about the business model controversy, could you cite some examples with links SirGrant 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'requires absolutely no knowledge...' 'has spread round the world... bringing awards and plaudits in its wake'. This is not the English of encyclopaedias I suggest. Bob aka Linuxlad

I do agree with you on those points, I'm going to fix some of those poines you made, if you could pull up some of the controversy over the business model we can add that as well SirGrant 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I changed what I could, about the "requires absolutely no knowledge..." I do believe that portion is pretty NPoV though because I do believe it does require very little to no knowledge of linux to install and use. For example to install you essentially boot from CD and answer some questions, you don't have to use console or a command line interface so ultimatly a user without knowledge of linux is able to install and use it. Therefor I just simple changed it to requires little or no knowledge. I couldn't also find any awards but if someone can find them instead of saying awards and plaudits in it's wake it would be better to list them individually. SirGrant 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There has been significant controversy within and around SmoothWall, largely centered on individual personalities. Slashdot had an article about Smoothwall, a review of it, and the treatment of the reviewer. It may make for an interesting read. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/09/2050237

I agree that the text is not neutral and sounds like a sales pitch. Comments such as "a staple example of Open Source software" and "picked up by the IT press worldwide" is strong language for a such a product. Bcnstony 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unoffical Wiki Website

I am unable to get to the "SmoothWall (unofficial) Wiki", it seems to be linked to a dyndns account that is no longer active or disabled. I searched around the internet looking to see if the address has changed but I am unable to come up with anything. I am going to remove it, if anyone finds the correct url for it please post. Bear21 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've been meaning to do this for ages, and got pretty close to completing a rewrite of the SmoothWall page a few months ago, but wouldn't you know, Firefox died before I could submit it :) Some recent comments by Richard Morrell prompted me to get back at it. I don't think the SmoothWall company is entirely to blame for the gushing prose originally found on this page, but I've tried to neutralise it as much as possible. I hope this rewrite goes a long way to redressing the balance and reinstating some NPoV. (Caveat: I am a member of the SmoothWall team, and I used to work for SmoothWall Ltd.) —Neuropedia 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work I have also been meaning to rewrite this page but have not had time to get around to it but I do think it needed two different sections one for express and the other for the paid version. Keep up the good work SirGrant 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:31, 25 February 2007 edit Neuro (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,009 edits Rewrite ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:51, 25 February 2007 edit undo SirGrant (talk \| contribs) 1,945 edits →Rewrite Next edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:

	I've been meaning to do this for ages, and got pretty close to completing a rewrite of the SmoothWall page a few months ago, but wouldn't you know, Firefox died before I could submit it :) Some recent comments by Richard Morrell prompted me to get back at it. I don't think the SmoothWall company is entirely to blame for the gushing prose originally found on this page, but I've tried to neutralise it as much as possible. I hope this rewrite goes a long way to redressing the balance and reinstating some NPoV. ''(Caveat: I am a member of the SmoothWall team, and I used to work for SmoothWall Ltd.)'' —[[User:Neuropedia\|Neuropedia]] 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)		I've been meaning to do this for ages, and got pretty close to completing a rewrite of the SmoothWall page a few months ago, but wouldn't you know, Firefox died before I could submit it :) Some recent comments by Richard Morrell prompted me to get back at it. I don't think the SmoothWall company is entirely to blame for the gushing prose originally found on this page, but I've tried to neutralise it as much as possible. I hope this rewrite goes a long way to redressing the balance and reinstating some NPoV. ''(Caveat: I am a member of the SmoothWall team, and I used to work for SmoothWall Ltd.)'' —[[User:Neuropedia\|Neuropedia]] 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
			:Good work I have also been meaning to rewrite this page but have not had time to get around to it but I do think it needed two different sections one for express and the other for the paid version. Keep up the good work [[User:SirGrant\|SirGrant]] 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)