Talk:Smoothwall

Linux Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class 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]

It's amazing that the rewrite was done in such a fashion as to blank out three years of my life and commitment (including giving you a job Neuro and saving your job on more than one occassion). Remember the need to remain factual and accurate and not to feel some god granted need to use virtual tipp-ex. There are facts backed up by contract and reality that shouldn't be ignored. Also pride and a lot of good came from hard work and sometimes conflict is the cause of friction. Something funded and created in two bedrooms in Hampshire still stands today at the cost of a lot of bad memories and infighting and personal hell. Please don't act as some editorial janitor when realistically you don't 1) have the right 2) have the ability to rewrite the past 3) Remembering you weren't actually around when a lot of things actually happened as you were but an employee and a valued and cherished one at that. dickmorrell 00:36, 23rd May 2007 (UTC)

Your consistently uncitable and NPOV additions warranted change to the article, as did later additions by current SmoothWall Ltd staff. I have preserved fact wherever possible. If you are so desperate to have your financial contributions added to the article - which, remember, is for an encyclopedia - please do so in an NPOV and citable fashion without original research in-line with Wikipedia policy. As for your personal comments regarding my employment, they do not belong near this Talk page, or anywhere else on the public Internet. Please do not take any of these comments as hostile or argumentative; I merely wish to ensure this article retains an NPOV standpoint and documents as fully as possible the history of SmoothWall without resorting to using minutae and personal opinions. You are more than welcome to discuss this with me further by e-mail if you feel my edits, which are in-line with policy, are out of order. —Neuropedia 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smoothwall 3

Is smoothwall 3 express a stable app? The article seems ambiguously worded, despite the website saying a stable version is out. 24.252.89.123 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should disclose that I am a member of the Express team :D My answer is yes. We underwent a long beta phase before releasing 3 and there have been several updates since it came out of beta. (ImranC)

Smoothwall or SmoothWall?

Which is correct? The article appears confused and inconsistent on the matter. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the primary title of the article is "SmoothWall", to which "Smoothwall" is a redirect. However the text of the article begins "Smoothwall is…" 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the websites of both the Open Source Smoothwall project (http://www.smoothwall.org/) and the privately held Smoothwall company (http://www.smoothwall.com/), the name as dropped the capitalized W. Lumnicence (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2015

It has been proposed in this section that Smoothwall be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log

SmoothWall → ? – What they said. This article should be moved. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split it appears the more appropriate thing would be to split out Smoothwall and SmoothWall content into two separate articles. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]