User talk:Fsdfs

Welcome!

Hello, Fsdfs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! *drew 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for insulting my intelligence. Fsdfs 09:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo Group

Why do you think Lenovo Group compete against? Alienware, Lenovo make business oriented computers, not games oriented computers like Alienware. If you have a source for this information, then It should be kept in the article. If you haven't, I will remove it again. — Wackymacs 15:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alienware does compete with Lenovo in the business market. You should probably see the front page of www.alienware.com before making such a claim. Fsdfs 09:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who did not use the talk page correctly

I really do not understand you, really. I post an article (Human Shit) about one of my favorite bands that not too many people know about, and you recommend that it be deleted? You describe the article as vulgar, but did it ever occur to you that a name is a name? There is nothing I can do about the fact that the band named themselves Human Shit. But, nonetheless, they do exist and they are a legitimate piece of local history. It would be very nice of you to post another replay recommending htta the article not be deleted. I do believe you owe that to me now. --Some anonymous user who forgot to sign

open source

While it is nice to have an opinion, it isn't nice to add it to articles. If you don't actually know what open source is about don't go randomly trying to merge or edit the articles about it as you have. There are many distinct groups that use these terms and you don't appear to be aware of them. There is a very solid difference between the Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative and open source as it is applied by the broader scope of people. Merging the two would be as wrong to do as merging Free Software with freeware, because the Free Software Foundation has set a very prickly definition for what they call Free. All these things, though related are completely different in how they do things, wanting to merge them is worse than foolhardy, it's absolutely stupid.

Also the concept is for people that know what they are talking about to make improvements. The term open source is no more a neologism than the term crackpot when used to describe people that are not mentally astute, it has been a part of the language for a reasonably long time. Open source has been used to describe texts which attribute all source information and allow for their complete fact-checking for more than 100 years, the term is still used. Open source software is a new usage of the term, but that has been used for the past 40 years, so even then it's not all that new. Janizary 17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment that they are different. Which is why the bullshit removal process has begun. However, do not attempt to claim credibility by pulling random 'facts' out of your ass. you are not credible. you are not respected. you are non-notable. and of course the fact that you single handedly removed the merge request from the articles without any community process confirms that you are a vanity editor. you are not the descision maker. Fsdfs 05:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should indeed be merged, but they should be merged into the free software article. First off, "free" is the only accurate word. Second, historically, "free software" has 15 years of priority (the movement titled "free software" started in 1983, where as the movement/campaign for "open source software" started in 1998). "Free" being the most accurate is important, because in the 60s and 70s, all software could be modified and redistributed - so there was no term for it. In retrospect, the most accurate term should be applied - and that's "free software". "open source software" is simply a marketing campaign for "free software". A marketing campaign that some think is great, and some think is counterproductive.

As for the differences between software that FSF say complies with their "free software definition", and software that Open Source Initiative say complies with their "open source" definition - the differences make little difference in the real world (little or no widely used software is one but not the other). As for the widespread public confusion about what consitutes "open source software", I don't think this causes the definition to be different. Widespread misunderstanding of a mathematical theorum wouldn't change the theorum or it's accuracy. So I think the free software article (after the merge) should simply mention that the public hasn't found the term "open source software" to be understandable. Gronky 20:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you entirely miss the point, open source is larger than either of the two niche factions, open source has been around since before the founding of the OSI. That is why open source has it's own article, because it's bigger than either and includes more. What the people outside these groups understand is irrelevant, what actually is there is. It's like trying to merge the articles on the Scots and the Irish, despite both having celtic heritage they are distinct peoples and such a merged article would be a bad one to have, they could be linked to from a celts article however. If you don't see the difference then you should open your eyes and look into it, you're asking to ignore the differences between the Greeks and Romans. Anyways, if you don't see the differences you shouldn't be commenting on it. Janizary 20:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was about "open source software" - I consistantly bothered to type the full name each time. I won't comment on the validity of the article on "open source". I do think that the articles free software, open source software, Free/Libre/Open-Source Software, Libre software, and Free Open Source Software should be merged. Gronky 20:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bullshit terms of FOSS, FLOSS and nonsense like that where people are just trying to come up with a name that includes everyone should be merged, that I will agree to, because they are all dealing with the same thing. But open source, Open Source software and Free Software are all different, that's what you need to learn, they are different. That Libre Software is just another group's name to cover Free Software means it should be a section in Free Software. Janizary 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I agree with your first sentence and your last sentence. In your second sentence, I agree that open source shouldn't be merged into free software, but I disagree with you about free software and open source software - I think those two should be merged (I think they are two terms for practically the same thing). But it seems we won't agree overnight, and this is probably not the best place to discuss it anyway. Gronky 21:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please don't edit old closed VfD/AfD discussions [1].

Also, you seem to be promoting Alienware brand products (Alienware Area 51 [2] and Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion ([3] and many, many others).

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with regard to the above and with regard to your edits to various open-source-related pages. -- Curps 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brands of computer

What's the point of creating pages like Alienware Bot about a particular brand of computer by a niche manufacturer, while simultaneously proposing the deletion of other brands of computer such as the Dell Inspiron which (much as I dislike it) comprises a vast percentage of all business ~~PCs~~ laptops sold. Ojw 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The product pages were created in response to the expected failed vote to remove Dell's product pages. As much as I disagree with having product pages in the first place, this is the precedent that appeared to have been set with an overwhelming "keep" majority, and I intend to follow it through all applicable channels to the best of my interest. If Dell's product pages are infact removed, I will gladly remove the Alienware product pages, as I do not want to be the one to create those pages.

Please read WP:POINT. -- Curps 07:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a good theorist so I am not good at proving concepts, though I will try. Traditionally, I have expected that encyclopedia articles contain information with all things being equally notable. If you were to allow one such article to have a subsection which gave a distinct or perceived favortism over another equally important article it would not make sense and would break down the system which is designated to make note of only notable things. In essence, giving one company in the same market more exposure over another would seem as if it were favoring one, and generating the presence of bias to the reader. Not to say that those articles are more or less worthy, but as a general rule of thumb there should be equal exposure. nothing more, nothing less but being equal. personally, I think Alienware should actually die quietly because they are kniving backstabbing liars with no allegiences though I do know more about it than others and though they do caring more about money than anything else, let's just burry the hatchet for now because the time will come to burry them 6 feet under... Fsdfs 07:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples are given at WP:POINT#Examples. I think the basic idea is, don't do something that you actually disagree with, just to make a point.

Regarding the two companies, Dell is much larger (by stock market capitalization, revenue, number of employees, sales, etc) and a much better-known company than Alienware and its brands are also much better known, so a straight comparison doesn't necessarily follow. -- Curps 10:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Neologism"

Most of the field of personal computing has a fairly recent history, so nearly every single term was once a "neologism". "Graphical user interface" (GUI) for instance, and countless other examples. Today, "open source" is a well-established and widely-used term and can no longer be considered a neologism. -- Curps 07:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't exactly a non-neologism yet specifically for non-software fields, because that is rather new. I don't think the acceptance of "open source" as a concept or practice for software automatically makes it's applicability to other fields non-neologism just yet. It would need more time and evidence to prove that the term has caught on in other fields before claiming it's acceptance. One or two examples just is not enough, despite their previous posistioning or credibility, it doesn't mean that people will accept it in the long term which is what encyclopedias are there for. I belive that encyc. are here to preserve important knowledge for generations to come so that they can peer into the minds and lives of those who lived before them, not to preserve every peice of history, as that would be for specialized history books, or perhaps even specialized encyclopedias. Because of the fact that it sounds awkward for non-software uses makes open source advocates sound like they just want to pollute everything with the word open source so everything and everyone thinks about promoting open source software or open source pizza, or whatever somehow linking back to the origoinal "open source software" .. "linus torvalds" or "Eric Steven Raymond". It just sounds like they have a score to settle or some other devious motive as I don't really see how the concept of sharing source code, designs/blueprints, or whatever basis for a product/service is called, as being worthy of note for future generations. This is something that parents teach their children, and frankly if you don't know how to share by the time that you can read and think on your own, then you won't ever truely understand the meaning of sharing as it would be very difficult to accept new ways of lifestyle after so long without hurting others in the process as the origional intention was to please others. This "movement" is some faggot's rendition so he doesn't have to pay for software or even pizza anymore. god that guy should just move to china for god sakes instead of trying to put the capitalists in a posistion to die in an embarassing way. im not sure but it seems like that guy might have gotten lectured on software piracy when he was little otherwise he wouldnt be so damn vicsious about such a simple concept. i sswear i'd put a bullet in his brain if he didn't stfu forcing me to see it everytime i wake up and read about the latest attempt to put a stop to capitalism in general. I know exactly what they are trying to accomplish, and I simply do not belive it is economical, but some people who have voices in the community (and as such squelch the critism whenever possible like politicians) simply have alot more to gain by promoting things they create than if it were a more natural accumulation, which gives me the impression that they are in it for some economic bennefit or some social recognition rather than improving the community as a whole, which I intend to put a hault to. If it were truely a concept dedicated to improving the community then they would not go so far as to being one sided and clearly blindsight all opposing evidence which may contradict it, it just adds to the evidence that they gain more themselves than the community will gain as a whole by having it accepted (such as their ego, more or less). It also adds to the evidence that clearly some of these people are brainwashed more or less than others but still nevertheless, to some degree tainted by this phrase as if it were like a godsend that never existed before -- it would be like taking something out of folklore and hyping it up to be something truely innovative like the cottin gin or cryptography or something equally as creative for a purpose and not personal gain -- but in reality just saying something like "loving your parents but not abusive parents, unless they regret it afterwards due to some circumstances as applicable" should be called "googlegoogle-floppycock." (I'm a bit childish sometimes to make a point). .... and for now on we shall know "open source" as "source code that we give you under a license which says exactly what you can do with it" just makes alot more sense than a euphanism which does not apply to everything. I'll give it to them that it does sound good and even makes alot of sense for software, but by all means keep that peice of shit away from literally every field like they want it to. I don't want to have to keep repeating myself that in some way it just leads back to improving their egos and lives in some way by means of creature comforts. If such an "essay" was what he wanted, well to the fuck with that because frankly this is how I feel and that isn't going to change by force. I know that if I were born 100 years from now and they called sharing pizza receipies "open source pizza" i'd curse raymond and burn effigies of him while we danced and pissed on his grave (hopefully he would have opted for a space burial so he would literally be "out of this earth" and not just theoretically). Simply put, this whole "movement", it's supporters and especially its organizers is/are outrageous and an embarassment to the entire human race. If that's the point you desire, well, you can certainly die in a fire and I wouldn't care. All I care is that someone doesn't try to intentionally and so vehemotely steal food from people's mouths who earn decent wages and honest living from respectable, legitamate jobs because this mother fucker wants everything to be free. Fsdfs 08:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Regarding "neologisms", the term "open source" is a well-established term used routinely in business publications, such as The Economist (Google search), Forbes (Google search). What people will talk about 100 years from now is anyone's guess. -- Curps 10:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51

The standard Wikipedia practice is: when one meaning of a term considerably predominates over all the others, it usually gets the undisambiguated title. For instance London is an article about the major city in England, and London (disambiguation) points to the various other Londons. On the other hand, if various meanings have comparable weight (such as Mercury the planet and mercury the chemical element), then the page (Mercury in this case) is itself a disambiguation page.

In this case, one particular meaning of "Area 51" very much predominates over all the others, so the first case is applicable and the page should not be moved. -- Curps 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I actually on second thought do not care to give Alienware and it's founders the bennefit of extra exposure. I'm quite pleased with such a rule of thumb.

ds

fsdfsdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.91.145 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Orange Koolaide Lobster- This is one mighty fine animal. It's crazy scary. IT WASN'T A ROCK! IT WAS A ORANGE KOOLAIDE MONSTER!!!!