293:
266:
361:
190:
234:
424:
414:
393:
1129:"Software bloat" is a meaningless term bandied about by people to disparage software that has features they personally don't use. It's in no way reserved for closed source software. Google for any of the following: "kde bloat", "gnome bloat", "ubuntu bloat", "linux bloat", or permit me a single word: Emacs.
994:
operating system kernels looked for differences between code developed using open-source properties (the first two kernels) and proprietary code (the other two kernels). The study collected metrics in the areas of file organization, code structure, code style, the use of the C preprocessor, and data
934:
Its not like that all applications on
Windows happily use DirectShow. E.g. for music applications there is ASIO as well, nearly each video editing application introduces an own plugin format. I see the situation under Linux a bit cleaner,. First xine and mplayer are not frameworks, they are players.
741:
No, that's part of his speculation that "there is also the possibility that
Mozilla innovation could slow down and the browser could be surpassed by more innovative products such as Opera or Konqueror." Mozilla innovation has not slowed down, so it has not been surpassed by those other products, so
612:
Knowledge (XXG) is open-source oriented. If everything is proprietary, wikipedia would not even exist. Mere facts are not biased. Proprietary lovers can make their own proprietary 'Pedia and then not be able to contribute to it nor comment. Mere fact that you can comment and change pages and state
562:
I did massive edits I think may clear some biases. This is horrible. I think some resons this may be so one sided is that
Knowledge (XXG) is open source. This article however makes me REVOLT at open source. Seriously, this is horrible. Here is my opinion as a Windows User using Firefox. Open Source
1149:
Oh, and BTW, I'm not going to respond to any arguments with the above. I don't mean to be rude, I simply don't have the time. (And it's a
Saturday! Go outside and play! :) If you'd like to debunk the arguments, restore the material with proper citations. (3rd party, reliable, all that jazz.)
566:
See? Its pretty simple to me. I dunno though. My honest opinion is that this page is written by a smug Linux user who likes to smell his own farts and say "I am root" and this makes me hate it. This is part of the reason I hate Mac users. SMUGGNESS ONLY RECOILS PEOPLE! I love open source, but this
820:
about whether
Konqueror is innovative at dot.kde.org are considered reliable because they're clearly going to be biased in favor of their own applications. But you do have a reliable source (Linux Magazine) that says Konqueror is innovative, so feel free to add it to the list of innovative open
1168:
Item 1 reflected the reality more in the original version. Many (not necessarily all) closed source developers put heavy efforts on customer lock-in, utilizing secrecy and proprietary formats (only possibly with closed source) to do so. You can find hundreds of references to
Microsoft alone on
958:
This discussion contains complaints concerning the many original research / unverifiable statements included in the corresponding article. I added the following section, which references a peer-reviewed conference paper. It was reverted, because it contained a reference to a work that I had
1169:
Google. In contrast, your formulation is both too trivial to actually say enough to be included and over-generalizes how commercial companies work: Features are very often thought up merely to demonstrate new-ness, give marketing and sales arguments, and not based on user feedback.
943:
Weasel words were a problem, I hope I didn't do anything against the rules in that regard. Most significantly, I edited out some statements with obvious POV, (some was ridiculous), and asked for a lot of sources. Possibly too many, but hopefully not. I also fixed a few typos. Whoo!
588:
I am a proud open source fan, but in all seriousness, this article is very open-source slanted in some parts, while very closed-source in other parts. It lacks citations in many places. I am going to do my best to try and help close the gaps, but any assistance would be great -
1329:
There is still a "?" tag () on the sentence "Moreover, many see the introduction of FOSS as damaging to the market for commercial software" in the article. I suggest that it can be removed now. Any comments or advice? - such as, regarding the kind of (and the extent of)
1210:. From reviewing this article and the references, I believe the terms in this article should be changed to "Proprietary Software" if the current definition of "open source" is left as is. (Note that I am making a distinction here, Open Source does not specifically mean
538:
I have been trying to add a bunch of more substantive content, including several new sections.So far I haven't done much to touch the existing content, but I think it's time to get rid of the existing "Control" and "Missing technological components" sections, as a start.
1175:
Item 4 is again an over-generalization that takes a very serious problem in today's software world too lightly. You are, however, right in that it is common in "FOSS" too. (To avoid writing a five page essay, I am not going to go into a discussion on how features
759:
No, commercial success does not equal innovation. Media coverage does not equal innovation. Popularity does not equal innovation. NPOV has nothing to do with innovation. KDE is far more innovative than
Windows and Mac OS, and Konqueror is its core application. --
749:
If there's very little mention of
Konqueror and much about Firefox in the media, it doesn't make sense to mention Konqueror and not Firefox, as that would be out of proportion. It may make sense to mention Konqueror further down the list, for example. --
1299:
made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It also reversed the copyedit of the word "distro" to the better "distribution". It should be reverted.
153:
959:
published (the fact that I had published the paper was obvious: my
Knowledge (XXG) id is my name; I don't believe in hiding behind an alias). If somebody thinks that this should be included in the entry, you can find the corresponding text below.
897:
This could be the single worst, most biased, and unsourced article on
Knowledge (XXG). A random editor rising from the unwashed masses from the Internet could rightfully delete 60% of the competely unsupported nonsense found here. Congratulations,
911:. 3 months ago it was unbearable banter between windows dorks and linux fan-boys. Now it's been cleaned up into neat tables full of useful and relevant information presented in a (mostly) non-biased language. This article can do the same.
44:
1382:"Dr. R. Keith Sawyer claimed in a article on Huffington Post 2007 that Open-source software are more derivative than innovative, with Linux being a derivative of Unix, and Firefox not being different from any other browser."
925:
This page is ridiculously POV and requires serious cleanup. There is plenty of unsourced "the opens-source community believes..." or "open-source software is often accused of...". The whole article needs a massive rewrite.
613:
facts known to anyone make wikipedia a better place and that requires explanation of differences, to labeling article on top for stating facts and let it stay there since 2005 is political statement and biased itself. (
1069:
This article states: "Open source (or free software)" while this are very different terms and I find this statement unfortunate. Maybe something like Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) would be better suited?
147:
1089:
This page is in sore need of some heavy editing. I've been removing content that's unsourced. Lest I be accused of vandalism, I want to provide a point-by-point debunking of a paragraph I just removed.
1093:
I'm doing this as a demonstration of my good faith. I don't have to do it at all - this material was unsourced and hence automatically eligible for removal (if my understanding of WP rules is correct.)
563:
Less Popular so Less People Look for Holes. More People looking to solve holes then those exploiting. Closed Source Wide use driven by commercial nature. Smaller group fixing holes then those looking.
870:
to develop new web standards, some of which are being implemented in Firefox. In fact, I would have a hard time thinking of a group that has been more innovative in the field of browsers, other than
995:
organization. The aggregate results indicate that across various areas and many different metrics, four systems developed using open source and closed source development processes score comparably.
854:
project's innovations than innovations in just their current product Firefox. Among possible innovations, we could list the very idea of open-sourcing such a popular product (Netscape had about 50%
1217:
Open Source is defined as "the software development model used by the free and open source software (FOSS) movement" within the article. It would be more appropriate to use the definition from
1105:
Another important factor in the closed-source revenue model involves earning revenue. Revenue comes from customers. Customers look for specific features. Hence, those features are created.
577:
They look good so far...may be surgery on a dying patient though. If you're feeling ambitious you might try restructuring from scratch keeping as much of the informative content as possible.
799:
are reliable since they are the developers. And I could argue that it is commenly known that Konqueror is innovative. I'm using it since version 1.0 and I know it is innovative. --
1551:
523:
Definately biased. I'd like to make it a little more objective, but I just don't have the time on my hands right now, maybe an administrator could put a bias warning on the top??
502:
This article only seems to contain arguments against open source / for closed source and their rebuttal. I think it lacks arguments why to use open source in the first place. --
1416:
24:
512:
yes, this article is extremely one-sided. It essentially takes successful open source projects and then says, "See? They work. Criticism of OSS is wrong!" That's not NPOV.
808:
Again, it doesn't matter what you know, or what is "commonly known". What matters is what is verifiable from reliable sources. Again, Jim Rapoza never said that Konqueror
1260:
In my mind the distinction needs to be made because of the tendency to lump everything that has source available with FOSS when that is very definitely not the case (see
1464:
1460:
1446:
1199:
I was looking at this to try and remove as much bias and provide a neutral point of view as I could and realized that with the current descriptions, it cannot be done.
168:
135:
1172:
Item 3 is far from a stretch, but something I have seen time and again at my own employers (I am a software developer) and in commercial software from others.
351:
79:
210:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1353:
This section reads like a essay, and completely lacks any sources. Will see how much energy I have to fix it up, and would appreciate any help I can get.
1225:
I would be more than willing to provide a large volume of changes if a rough consensus can be reached as to the goal of the article. Is the goal to show:
1546:
1536:
375:
341:
1526:
129:
480:
197:
769:
You are correct that commercial success does not equal innovation. You may even be correct that Konqueror is the most innovative browser. However,
1432:
85:
1571:
470:
317:
125:
1098:
Another important factor in the closed-source revenue model involves fending off competitors (both actual and potential) by continually raising
567:
article has to be inforitive. If you guys see anything wrong with my edits, please fix them. I only would like this page to be wiki quality. -
175:
1393:
1181:
1180:
be added without causing problems, but most organisations fail to through poor designs and conceptualizations; however, this is the case.)
874:, inventor of the web. The fact that Firefox has copied features of other browsers need not be mentioned, as I'm sure all browsers besides
600:
30:
1110:
As a result, closed-source software vendors often have to reinvent their product essentially from scratch, which adds to their own costs.
1221:
which reads "Open source is an approach to design, development, and distribution offering practical accessibility to a product's source".
1576:
1531:
446:
1541:
1151:
1135:
300:
271:
213:
201:
99:
1442:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
816:
that innovation at Mozilla could slow down, and if that happens that other browsers could become more innovative. I don't think the
370:
276:
104:
20:
1203:
The current definitions of "open source" and "closed source" introduced at the start have a "GNU vs. The Man" connotation to them.
141:
728:
The Konqueror has little media coverage. cnet.com hasn't an single article about it. But Jim Rapoza (eweek.com) wrote 2003 that
74:
1566:
1561:
1390:
But it was removed, and the entire Innovation section since 2012 has been dedicated to innovation only in open source software.
245:
1556:
1118:
Sometime these features are added with little thought for their impact on the conceptual integrity of the overall product...
528:
Do you think we should split the page into "pro-open source" and "pro-closed source" kind of like the Windows vs Linux page?
437:
398:
65:
1512:
1401:
1362:
1343:
1308:
1284:
1253:
1229:
1211:
1189:
1159:
1143:
1079:
968:
948:
915:
902:
886:
825:
803:
782:
764:
754:
736:
723:
706:
681:
672:
664:
I still don't know, what's so innovative at Mozilla. IE is no rival for it. If we list an innovative Browser it should be
659:
641:
622:
581:
571:
553:
543:
532:
516:
506:
1507:
1280:
964:
879:
908:
987:
778:. Can you find a reliable source that verifies this claim? If not, we cannot make the claim in Knowledge (XXG). --
219:
109:
1463:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1433:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101130115904/http://www.startupgallery.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_4&p=5
1397:
1035:
719:
by citing a reliable source, so we can't say Konqueror is innovative unless a reliable source says as much. --
604:
1185:
1102:. Thus, new versions of the software are continually being introduced, with lots of new features being added.
935:
GStreamer and NMM are frameworks. All of the have in common that they include ffmpeg for wide codec coverage.
791:
where Jim Rapoza wrote that Konqueror and Opera are more innovative than Mozilla. There is also an article in
251:
1498:
1424:
1339:
960:
1268:
1015:
699:
596:
1155:
1139:
313:
1387:
I don't know if that was a good sentence to have in the article or a bad sentence to have in the article.
1331:
55:
1482:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1470:
1436:
1305:
1261:
503:
445:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
316:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1423:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
568:
70:
1248:
1233:
1207:
677:
Do you have a reliable source that calls Konqueror innovative? And even if so, why not list both? --
233:
207:
1121:
Well, ya can't argue with weasel words. But... wow. This is a stretch. That's all I'm gonna say.
614:
161:
1071:
858:
when its source code was open-sourced in 1998), creating their own cross-platform user interface (
792:
1335:
1011:
795:
which states that Konqueror is an innovative application. I would also say that the comments at
618:
529:
1467:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1483:
1099:
1075:
991:
702:
with a detailed look at WinXP's file manager, Explorer, and KDE's file manager, Konqueror. --
652:
590:
51:
744:
1358:
1301:
1276:
1023:
945:
1490:
1052:
912:
871:
711:
Those sources look like blogs and forums, and thus probably don't meet the criterion of a
742:
therefore the four-year-old speculation was clearly incorrect. And remember that we must
712:
1449:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
578:
1489:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1456:
788:
770:
729:
716:
715:
according to Knowledge (XXG). As you may know, information in Knowledge (XXG) must be
648:
1520:
883:
875:
822:
779:
751:
720:
678:
656:
429:
1020:
ICSE '08: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering
1354:
1272:
1244:
1238:
1218:
899:
855:
360:
292:
265:
1455:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
863:
419:
1027:
850:
As to what the innovations are, I think it makes more sense to speak of the
796:
691:
687:
665:
513:
309:
1195:
Title is inaccurate or misleading with regards to the intent of the article
222:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
800:
761:
733:
703:
669:
638:
550:
540:
305:
698:
except Konqueror, in 2007 Chris Spackman wrote about his experiences of
647:
Some reliable sources seem to think Firefox is innovative. For example,
979:
851:
1022:. Leipzig, Germany: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 381–390.
1437:
http://www.startupgallery.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_4&p=5
867:
1372:
by saying that quantifying who or what is innovative is impossible."
1379:. It was removed in August 2012‎. The section used to open with:
983:
442:
423:
695:
859:
413:
392:
227:
184:
15:
1368:
The section opens with (emphasis mine,) "Gary Hamel counters
1165:
While I have no direct objections to the edits, I note that:
633:
What does Mozilla Firefox that qualifies it to be listed at
359:
1126:...leading to the well-known phenomenon of software bloat.
907:
It's pretty bad. But not beyond help. Take a look at the
686:
Some innovative features are already listed in the article
1427:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
812:
more innovative than Mozilla. He said that there is the
745:
represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias
1420:
1296:
160:
1417:
Comparison of open-source and closed-source software
730:
Konqueror and Opera are more innovative than Mozilla
441:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
304:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
25:
Comparison of open-source and closed-source software
1459:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
789:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1158505,00.asp
174:
772:the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is
866:with version 1.7, and working together with the
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1445:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
1552:C-Class software articles of High-importance
1415:I have just modified one external link on
1206:Closed Source is not defined but links to
387:
260:
690:. In 2003 dot.kde.org wondered about the
1003:
389:
262:
231:
1048:
1044:
1033:
326:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
7:
1527:Knowledge (XXG) controversial topics
435:This article is within the scope of
298:This article is within the scope of
880:copied features from other browsers
250:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1241:code vs. non-available source code
14:
1547:High-importance software articles
1537:Mid-importance Computing articles
1419:. Please take a moment to review
455:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linux
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
422:
412:
391:
291:
264:
232:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
978:An analysis of the code of the
700:Switching from KDE to WindowsXP
475:This article has been rated as
346:This article has been rated as
212:Content must be written from a
196:The subject of this article is
1572:High-importance Linux articles
1302:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
329:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
1256:vs. non-available source code
1254:Free and open source software
1230:Free and open source software
1212:Free and open source software
1080:16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
949:00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
916:21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
903:06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
862:), continued improvements to
623:07:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
533:11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
449:and see a list of open tasks.
368:This article is supported by
320:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1363:12:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1285:03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
887:03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
826:22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
804:21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
783:19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
765:19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
755:13:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
737:04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
724:03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
707:02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
682:01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
673:00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
660:22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
642:22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
582:05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
572:04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
554:19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
544:04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
517:00:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
1513:17:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
1160:19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
1144:19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
694:, in 2005 Hanno Böck wrote
206:When updating the article,
1593:
1577:WikiProject Linux articles
1532:C-Class Computing articles
1476:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1412:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1402:05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
1344:21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
629:Mozilla Firefox innovative
507:00:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
481:project's importance scale
458:Template:WikiProject Linux
352:project's importance scale
1542:C-Class software articles
1332:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
1309:18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
1262:GPL Incompatible Licenses
1190:19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
1065:Free Software/Open Source
909:Windows vs. Linux article
593:10:39, 14 November 2007
474:
407:
367:
345:
286:
258:
208:be bold, but not reckless
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1016:"A Tale of Four Kernels"
969:17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
821:source applications. --
774:verifiability, not truth
1408:External links modified
1375:There is no mention of
1028:10.1145/1368088.1368140
1567:C-Class Linux articles
1562:All Computing articles
364:
314:information technology
240:This article is rated
200:and content may be in
75:avoid personal attacks
1557:All Software articles
696:all browsers are crap
363:
301:WikiProject Computing
244:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
214:neutral point of view
100:Neutral point of view
1457:regular verification
1314:Proposed removal of
1249:Proprietary Software
1234:Proprietary Software
1208:Proprietary Software
787:I already linked to
371:WikiProject Software
105:No original research
1447:After February 2018
1334:needed? Thanks, --
1012:Spinellis, Diomidis
692:KDE's "innovations"
1501:InternetArchiveBot
1452:InternetArchiveBot
1043:Unknown parameter
961:Diomidis Spinellis
793:Linux Magazine #56
365:
332:Computing articles
246:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1477:
1288:
1271:comment added by
1100:barriers to entry
1085:My recent removal
608:
599:comment added by
495:
494:
491:
490:
487:
486:
438:WikiProject Linux
386:
385:
382:
381:
226:
225:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1584:
1511:
1502:
1475:
1474:
1453:
1377:the actual claim
1326:
1325:
1321:
1287:
1265:
1057:
1056:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1039:
1031:
1008:
594:
463:
462:
459:
456:
453:
432:
427:
426:
416:
409:
408:
403:
395:
388:
334:
333:
330:
327:
324:
295:
288:
287:
282:
279:
268:
261:
243:
237:
236:
228:
192:
191:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1517:
1516:
1505:
1500:
1468:
1461:have permission
1451:
1425:this simple FaQ
1410:
1351:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1317:
1316:
1294:
1266:
1197:
1113:See Mac OS X.
1087:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1042:
1036:cite conference
1032:
1010:
1009:
1005:
976:
956:
941:
932:
930:Mediaframeworks
923:
895:
872:Tim Berners-Lee
713:reliable source
631:
500:
477:High-importance
460:
457:
454:
451:
450:
428:
421:
402:High‑importance
401:
376:High-importance
331:
328:
325:
322:
321:
280:
274:
241:
189:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1590:
1588:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1519:
1518:
1495:
1494:
1487:
1440:
1439:
1431:Added archive
1409:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1394:216.38.129.126
1391:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1373:
1350:
1347:
1315:
1312:
1293:
1290:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1242:
1236:
1223:
1222:
1215:
1204:
1196:
1193:
1182:94.220.241.226
1163:
1162:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1086:
1083:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1002:
1001:
997:
975:
972:
955:
952:
940:
937:
931:
928:
922:
919:
894:
891:
890:
889:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
630:
627:
610:
609:
601:169.244.107.66
585:
584:
559:13 15 14 5 25
557:
556:
536:
535:
525:
524:
520:
519:
499:
496:
493:
492:
489:
488:
485:
484:
473:
467:
466:
464:
461:Linux articles
447:the discussion
434:
433:
417:
405:
404:
396:
384:
383:
380:
379:
366:
356:
355:
348:Mid-importance
344:
338:
337:
335:
318:the discussion
296:
284:
283:
281:Mid‑importance
269:
256:
255:
249:
238:
224:
223:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1589:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1472:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:Mike Schwartz
1333:
1322:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1292:Recent revert
1291:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1263:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1128:
1127:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1064:
1054:
1037:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
985:
981:
973:
971:
970:
966:
962:
953:
951:
950:
947:
938:
936:
929:
927:
920:
918:
917:
914:
910:
905:
904:
901:
892:
888:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
827:
824:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
781:
777:
776:
775:
768:
767:
766:
763:
758:
757:
756:
753:
748:
746:
740:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
675:
674:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
628:
626:
624:
620:
616:
606:
602:
598:
592:
587:
586:
583:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
564:
560:
555:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
542:
534:
531:
527:
526:
522:
521:
518:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
505:
504:212.99.194.14
497:
482:
478:
472:
469:
468:
465:
448:
444:
440:
439:
431:
425:
420:
418:
415:
411:
410:
406:
400:
397:
394:
390:
377:
374:(assessed as
373:
372:
362:
358:
357:
353:
349:
343:
340:
339:
336:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
297:
294:
290:
289:
285:
278:
273:
270:
267:
263:
257:
253:
247:
239:
235:
230:
229:
221:
217:
215:
209:
205:
203:
199:
198:controversial
194:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1499:
1496:
1471:source check
1450:
1444:
1441:
1414:
1411:
1376:
1369:
1352:
1328:
1295:
1259:
1224:
1198:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1152:75.45.110.58
1136:75.45.110.58
1134:
1092:
1088:
1068:
1051:suggested) (
1049:|book-title=
1019:
1014:(May 2008).
1006:
998:
977:
974:Code quality
957:
954:Code quality
942:
939:Weasel Words
933:
924:
906:
896:
876:WorldWideWeb
817:
813:
809:
773:
771:
743:
634:
632:
611:
569:68.228.33.74
565:
561:
558:
537:
501:
476:
436:
430:Linux portal
369:
347:
299:
252:WikiProjects
211:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1267:—Preceding
1245:Open source
1239:Open source
1219:Open Source
1045:|booktitle=
946:Scorchsaber
856:usage share
814:possibility
797:dot.kde.org
595:—Preceding
148:free images
31:not a forum
1521:Categories
1508:Report bug
1370:this claim
1349:Innovation
999:References
913:Hendrixski
864:JavaScript
717:verifiable
635:Innovation
1491:this tool
1484:this tool
1297:This edit
1047:ignored (
688:Konqueror
666:Konqueror
579:Antonrojo
323:Computing
310:computing
306:computers
272:Computing
220:citations
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1497:Cheers.—
1281:contribs
1269:unsigned
1150:Thanks,
898:fools.--
818:opinions
615:Minikola
597:unsigned
277:Software
218:Include
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1421:my edit
1072:Ggaaron
992:Windows
988:Solaris
980:FreeBSD
921:POV Tag
884:Schapel
852:Mozilla
823:Schapel
780:Schapel
752:Schapel
721:Schapel
679:Schapel
657:Schapel
479:on the
350:on the
242:C-class
202:dispute
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1355:Belorn
1318:": -->
1273:Ismarc
990:, and
900:Rotten
893:Eureka
868:WHATWG
549:Done.
530:Strake
312:, and
248:scale.
126:Google
984:Linux
882:. --
878:have
732:. --
668:. --
655:. --
649:eWeek
637:? --
591:Mr. P
452:Linux
443:Linux
399:Linux
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1398:talk
1359:talk
1340:talk
1320:edit
1306:talk
1277:talk
1247:vs.
1232:vs.
1186:talk
1156:talk
1140:talk
1076:talk
1053:help
965:talk
653:CNET
651:and
619:talk
605:talk
514:El T
471:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1465:RfC
1435:to
1264:)
1178:can
1024:doi
860:XUL
801:mms
762:mms
734:mms
704:mms
670:mms
639:mms
551:Ldo
541:Ldo
498:POV
342:Mid
259:fg
176:TWL
1523::
1478:.
1473:}}
1469:{{
1400:)
1361:)
1342:)
1304:-
1283:)
1279:•
1188:)
1158:)
1142:)
1078:)
1040::
1038:}}
1034:{{
1018:.
986:,
982:,
967:)
810:is
625:)
621:)
607:)
378:).
308:,
275::
156:)
54:;
1510:)
1506:(
1493:.
1486:.
1396:(
1357:(
1338:(
1324:]
1275:(
1214:)
1184:(
1154:(
1138:(
1074:(
1055:)
1030:.
1026::
963:(
747:.
617:(
603:(
483:.
354:.
254::
216:.
204:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
