This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
I do not think that these two articles should be merged (prelink & prebinding). They cover similar concepts, but they are two different programs for different platforms, and merging would dilute the focus of each, without benefit to the reader, who will likely be interested in only one or the other.
JohnMasinter (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a merge tag here again, because I disagree. Because what does prelink do? It precomputes memory addresses for dynamic linking on Linux. And what is prebinding? It's the same thing, done on Mac OS X. As for "diluting the focus"... Wikipedia is not a technical report; it is an encyclopedia. Well, it tries to be. So the articles should be encyclopedic, and that means preferably about rather general subjects. Both of the programs do practically the same thing; and it is this thing which should be covered, in one and only one article (unless it would be too long; then it should be split into several ones). Besides, the individual programs performing this task probably don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - but the task itself might. Ian (188.33.64.42 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I support merging, as a well-written merged article will not only properly describe the similarities, but also make the differences in approaches (and platform-dependant differences) way more evident. Both topics would benefit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the merging. While most of the Unix commands (like cp and mv) have their own page, why do you bother merge another tool ultility? I think if this article has been expanded to reasonable length (it is too short now), you'll not suggest it again. If you wanna merge, then please merge the xcopy and move as well, if you appreciate. They obviously do the same things. --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page helpful in its un-merged state since I was investigating the specifics of this application as it pertains to linux. 71.94.154.251 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same topic, and current article sizes. In contrast to the common user-aware Unix commands where separate articles for visible commands have more utility, this is more useful a technique article with examples for different implementations. Widefox; talk11:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
