Talk:Cello (web browser)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cello-1.01a-example.png

Image:Cello-1.01a-example.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Celloico.PNG

Image:Celloico.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Links

• Pros
  • http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16656543.html "Cello's strength is that it can reach a telnet, gopher or FTP address not in the URL syntax."
  • http://www.adahome.com/Tutorials/Lovelace/download.htm "Cello isn't the best web browser, but it's free and easy to install."
• cons
  • http://www.ucsc.edu/mdn/mdninfo1.html "I have not yet figured out an elegant way to do it with Cello, but I can offer a work-around. Define a text editor as viewer application. The editor should be able to handle large files (about 200 kbyte) without adding formatting tags. When the file arrives, it will be displayed, but don't bother to read. Just save the file to disk and close the editor."

from the help files:

Future Directions for Cello

• Multifield ph/qi/CSO queries
• Real Windows cut-and-paste in all windows.
• Support for HTML forms and tables
• HTML editing

mabdul 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview

It says at Network world that they had an interview with the cello creator...but I can't find it.=(.Smallman12q (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think this was a web only-interview. but I also can't find it at the moment!

On Bruce-wikipage there is following sentence "Cello was released on 8 June 1993." The date didn't fit, or? mabdul 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I mailed the webteam of NetworkWorld if they have any access to old pages/archive and can me send a copy of that interview. mabdul 14:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So I finally found the interview...its at http://www.networkworld.com/news/1997/1027browser.html .I found it doing a google search for cello site:http://www.networkworld.com/news/. It has some very nice quotes which will add to the article =D.Smallman12q (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey that's really cool. good search! The dates would fit, but this doesn't seam to be a "real interview" for me. I expected something different (although it has really interesting facts in this article). Also couldn't find the number 4421, which was in the introduction for the so-called DocFinder. mabdul 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Traxs7 has found another link at http://www.networkworld.com/news/1997/1027browser3.html ...and I found another one at http://www.networkworld.com/news/1997/1027browser2.html for other obscure browsers. I have now found all 3 related links at archive.org at:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20000130111943/http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1997/1027browser.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20011005005015/www.nwfusion.com/news/1997/1027browser2.html - covers hotjava, lynx, Arachne
• http://web.archive.org/web/20011005005601/http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1997/1027browser3.html

Smallman12q (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cello (web browser)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The article needs a thorough copyedit. I went through a few sections and cleaned it up, but there is still a lot more that needs work (beyond the point where I would still be a neutral party reviewing the article).

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

I am concerned about the use of lists in the features section. Many of the features, including supported protocols, etc., would better be shown in prose. Some of the features also warrant discussion: How widely used was Gopher+ at the time? How did it handle "mailto" without a standardized email client interface on the OS? How was it extensible? All of these would be able to be addressed if the features were in prose instead of a raw list.

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Very well referenced

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

In-line citations are appropriate

(c) it contains no original research

No evidence of original research

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

I am concerned with some of the topics not being discussed. Why did development cease? How did it compare to other (non-free) browsers at the time? The criticism section is really just a list rather than a discussion of the criticisms that were received; how were these criticisms responded to? These are the types of things that a reader might want to know upon coming here. I don't disagree that this is quite a historical browser; for this very reason, it is critical that this information be supplied in the article.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

OK

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Both criticisms and claims to fame are addressed, well balanced.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

Images are non-free, but have valid rationales and are appropriate for the article

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Images are relevant, but I think the splash screen may be overkill. That's open to debate, though.

General comments

This article can be great. In particular, the fact that there are so many references available makes the potential of this article very high (I feel it can hit featured article some day). Unfortunately, today is not that day. The article needs a copyedit, but first it can benefit from significant expansion in some area. It needs discussion of the features and criticisms as well as commentary on impact on the community. Yes, it was a big deal for lawyers, that was addressed well (though it could probably use its own section). What about other domains? These are the kinds of things an editor reading a quality article will want to see. With those concerns addressed I think this will be a clear candidate for a good article.

Overall

Based off the concerns above, I feel there is too much work to be done to warrant placing this article on hold right now, so I will have to fail it. However, I will be more than happy to review this article again when the above concerns are addressed, whether it takes a day, a month, or a year. I really want to see this become a good article, but it just needs some more work still.

Lead section

I'm not too good with rewriting technical articles...but I've attempted a lead section rewrite as follows:

Cello was an early shareware 16-bit multipurpose web browser for Windows 3.1 developed by Thomas R. Bruce of the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. It was the first web browser written for Microsoft Windows. Cello also featured a Gopher client and supported FTP, SMTP mailing, Telnet, HyTelnet Usenet, WAIS, TechInfo, Archie, X.500,and TN3270 protocols.

Cello was created because, at the time, most lawyers used the Microsoft Windows operating system, but the web browsers available were for Unix operating systems. This meant that legal information on the World Wide Web was inaccessible to legal experts using Microsoft Windows. Thomas R. Bruce who cofounded the Legal Information Institute which created the first legal website recognized this problem and set out to devolp Cello.

Cello was first publicly released on June 8, 1993. Although a version 2.0 had been announced, development was abandoned prior to a public release leaving version 1.01a, released on April 16, 1994, to be the last version. Since then, the Legal Information Institute has licensed out the Cello 2.0 source code which has been used to develop commercial software.

Cello was popular during 1993/1994, but fell out of favor following the release of Mosaic and Netscape, during which development was abandoned. At its peak, 500 copies of Cello were being downloaded daily and it had a user base of 150,000 users.

Although the browser is no longer available from its original homepage, it can still be downloaded from mirror sites. The browser, however, will not work with most modern websites because of its limited HTML support. In addition, the DNS protocol has since changed which means that Cello cannot locate most websites.

I'm not sure if its any better than the current lead...thanks for the review btw=D.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

System Requirements

Cello has the following system requirements: [55][56][7]

   * Processor: 80386(386SX) at 16Mhz[51] [7]or better
   * Operating System: Windows 3.1 / 3.11 / Windows NT 3.5[4][5] / OS/2.[14]
   * Ram: 2 MB RAM, 4 MB RAM recommended[41]
   * A TCP/IP connection running Winsock

Microsoft 3.1/3.11 is not an operating system. It's a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that runs on top of any one of several versions of DOS. It's a minor point and I probably wouldn't have noticed, but it made the "Did You Know" column on April 4, 2010. I suspect this statement, being on Wikipedia's front page, may attract a little attention.Yasgur (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that under certain technical definitions, Windows 3.1/3.11 would not qualify as an independent operating system. But as microsoft advertised it as one, and there are a number of reliable source referring to Windows 3.11 as an operating system, it is generally considered to be a Windows operating system. Microsoft states that

Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating system to the 1990 release of Windows 3.0, the first widely popular version of Windows and the first version of Windows many PC users ever tried.

— http://www.microsoft.com/windows/winhistorydesktop.mspx

I do agree that Windows 3.1/3.11 is pretty much a GUI to DOS...but it is still considered an operating system by most.Smallman12q (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for your interest, given that you only seem to edit a few times per year ^.^ Smallman12q (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovelace

Should we link Lovelace with Ada Lovelace? mabdul 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing it with Lovelace Ada. It should probably be linked to Ada (programming language).Smallman12q (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

Is it really wise to add the comparison with other browsers in this article instead of creating a new article (or include this in the Comparison of web browsers)? do we have any more data(or browsers) to add? mabdul 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)