This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of free and open-source software packages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of open-source software packages; result was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I interrupt right here but to list applications here does more harm than good for the wikipedia. Any application list is never complete, almost immediately outdated and in no case fair. So the decision to keep this list should not be based on a rather silly poll but on the implication it has on the correctness and relyability of the wikipedia. So this site has to be changed to contain sites which list applications and never again the applications themselves!
As I have said on various occasions, anyone who doubts the utility of the marvelously efficient information-conveying power of the humble punctuation mark known as the hyphen, when it is used in its traditional way, should consider the difference in meaning between two newspaper headlines:
or:
(which means the disease that causes poor nutrition...) versus:
(which means the disease that is caused by poor nutrition).
A web site asked Who are the best-connected physicists?, but omitted the hyphen, and I wondered for a second what exactly a "connected physicist" is, that being apparently prior to the question of which of those are the best.
Similarly:
etc. Accordingly, I think this page should be about Open-Source software rather than Open Source software. The topic is hereby opened for public discussion before I undertake any editing.
I remember reading about this somewhere...
The OSI site says:
and Eric Raymond wrote on http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html:
I suggest we follow that guideline, but you have to be careful since it often looks like an adjective, but isn't: Open Source Definition, Open Source Initiative -- both lack a hyphen. It's clearer when you think of OSD as "Definition of (Open Source)" rather than the incorrect "Definition that is open-source". In other words, you use "open-source" when it is a property and "Open Source" when referring to the object.
Daniel Quinlan 22:32 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In this case, I think it hardly makes any difference, and I would prefer omitting the hyphen in keeping with the more common usage. There is no ambiguity in open source software, since no parsing other than (open source) software makes sense. I like hyphens as much as the next guy, but only when they actually make sense. -- Delirium 10:32, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
Recently, I editted the page to indent subsections so that they would be more noticably subsections so as not to confuse people as to whether they were subsections or sections. This way, running through the list would be less confusing and easier on the eyes. However, it was changed by someone recently, and is back to being unindented. Could we please return it to being indented? It would make it much easier on the readers that way. -- LGagnon
I think this page is starting to get out of hand, we ought to come up with some sort of criteria for inclusion. -- Imran 13:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The main way to distinguish between open source and non open source sortware is the licence, often the OSI approved licences used to distinguish ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ ), as such I propose this list includes the software licence in brackets next to the entry. We could also consides a vers short discription and possibly the platforms it runs on. Only well known significant or mature projects should be mentioned, ie tail for windows does not meet these criteria, Mitch Kapors Chandler should be there as it is significant. If there is not some sort of elagibility criteria we may as well just start listing every project on sourceforge and freshmeat. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the above criteria. Here are apps which don't meet the above criteria that have been removed multiple times:
-- Karnesky 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
why would you clutter up an encyclopedia with this? there are innumerables. just dump freshmeat.net into your encyclopedia.
The categories need to be worked on, the internet one is fairly meaningless at least half the software mentioned could be considered internet soptware in some way. There should probably also be a division between client and server. There is also a lack of server software eg plenty of FTP clients but no proFTP. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I really agree on this, it's very random. I can't find WordPress etc. - Anna
Would it be a good idea to identify what open source license each program has? - Anthropic42 13:04, 13 April 2004 (UTC)
I think thats a very good idea (for someone with a lot of time on their hands) Htaccess 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of including the license--this is just a list. It is already to unwieldy with off-site links & descriptions of some programs. Many other software lists are just that--lists containing nothing more than links to the relevant Wikipedia article. -- Karnesky 00:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see a linked page about open-source equivalents of closed source software.
Can I add Syllable to the list? At version 0.5.5, it's not exactly totally mature yet, but it's useable and substantial. Graue 19:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the remark about QCad that "newer versions are no longer open-source"? The website linked in the QCad article indicates that the source code is under the GPL. Graue 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why are there two math sections?
Any objections to removing site links for any software that has a Wikipedia page & adding site links for those that don't have Wikipedia pages? Karnesky 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This is getting goofy. I'm converting all of this into categories. If you object, please tell me on my talk page and we can talk it over here. Wh e re (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that there isn't an article with a list of freeware (not open-source, but still free). I only see a link to a list at Wikibooks (which is fairly good). But if there is a list of open source software packages here at Wikipedia, shouldn't there be a list of freeware applications (not just games) here as well, not just at Wikibooks? -- FlyingPenguins 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I added the cleanup tag, as linking in headings is a "negative" in the MOS!
I'll get round to it eventually, unless someone else does first...
EvocativeIntrigue 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that this list has alot of links to 'Free X sofware'. Should those be listed if we're specifically discussing OSS?
I would suggest that, for the general public, the difference between free and OSS isn't great. Additionally, it seems like our lists are heavily mixed. May I suggest we make instead of this page a List of free software (which already redirects here) and then tag all the OSS packages. Oberiko 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. However, if free in this context is not the same as open source, then I do not think that list of free software packages should redirect to list of open source software packages. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
List of open source software packages →
List of free software packages – This page includes and points to many non-OS free packages already, plus it will standardize with them
Oberiko 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
I do still spend some time cleaning up this list & have noticed others spend time to. Through this continual cleanup, we've kicked out any pages which have too many ads or which are new/non-notable from the "External links" section. Because of this maintenance, I'd appreciate either removing the cleanup template (which seems to have been applied to MANY pages recently). If anyone objects to removing it now, I'd encourage them to cleanup the list as they see fit & then removing it. -- Karnesky 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I submit to your decision the inclusion of Openbravo in the finance category of this list. Full disclosure for the purpose of WP:NPOV: I am an Openbravo employee. Jmitja ( talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no concensus after 34 days
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
List of free and open source software packages →
List of free and open-source software packages — Multimove combined from 19 20 different talk pages; relisted for further input.
Jafeluv (
talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
like Open-source software — Neustradamus ( ✉) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments copied from Talk:Free and open source software |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
After more than 20 days of discussion there appears to be two clear positions here. The support for the move appears to be relying on an English grammatical rule stating that the adjectival form of "open-source" should be hyphenated. This stance is supported by the manual of style in
WP:HYPHEN, and it appears to be the manner which it is used in literature about the subject when they use the adjectival form. Opposition is relying on the guidelines at
use common name, saying that the term is most commonly not hyphenated. The opposition also points out that this conversation has occurred in that past, and we are not using the hyphenated form.
—
V = I * R (
Talk •
Contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
List of free software web applications has just been restructured to remove all non-notable apps and standardise the format. Maybe something similar could be done here? Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Below is my proposed new structure:
Package | Field | Built-on | Platform | License | Latest Version | Latest Release Date | Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCC | Compiler | C | cross-platform | GPL | 4.6.1 | June 27, 2011 | Includes C, C++, Objective-C, Ada, Java, Pascal and Fortran compilers |
Who removed my addition redarding IRC servers??? That was good information 70.26.22.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Attention other editors: I have discovered this tedhickey person is a vandal, and has been quitely removing stuff from this page. I don't know for how long as I did not check, but he has remove for example http://bots.sourceforge.net/en/index.shtml from the communication section. This is a perfectly good addition, like mine. This person should be banned immediately and the damage corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.247.141 ( talk) 11:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Where should we include cloud systems such as ownCloud, seafil etc? Wakeup12 ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to add a category for Geoscience in the Science section. The Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics (CIG) has a whole bunch of open source software packages in geosciences that help with modelling, etc of seismology, tectonics, volcanoes, sea-floor spreading.....I am also thinking of creating articles for the software, but thought I should start here first and ask if I can create a section where they can live. ScienceJen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceJen ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"This article need a review due incorrect licensing informations and missing informations that the listed program is only a demo". This may have been intended to supplement the {{ misleading}} tag. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Vitrite (software). The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Vitrite (software) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
As many others have said before this list is quite a mess and does not provide enough information to be useful when 'Category' article listings are more complete. I suggest turning it into a table with each row contatining the name of the software along with its license, brief description clearly stating its purpose and discerning features, developer and whether it's a fork or not. Such table could act as a quick reference of free software to anyone interested in a particular category without the need to open each article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmaslo ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Fyi. Might be valuable to relate or point out that it exists, https://joss.theoj.org/ KR 17387349L8764 ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of free and open-source software packages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of open-source software packages; result was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I interrupt right here but to list applications here does more harm than good for the wikipedia. Any application list is never complete, almost immediately outdated and in no case fair. So the decision to keep this list should not be based on a rather silly poll but on the implication it has on the correctness and relyability of the wikipedia. So this site has to be changed to contain sites which list applications and never again the applications themselves!
As I have said on various occasions, anyone who doubts the utility of the marvelously efficient information-conveying power of the humble punctuation mark known as the hyphen, when it is used in its traditional way, should consider the difference in meaning between two newspaper headlines:
or:
(which means the disease that causes poor nutrition...) versus:
(which means the disease that is caused by poor nutrition).
A web site asked Who are the best-connected physicists?, but omitted the hyphen, and I wondered for a second what exactly a "connected physicist" is, that being apparently prior to the question of which of those are the best.
Similarly:
etc. Accordingly, I think this page should be about Open-Source software rather than Open Source software. The topic is hereby opened for public discussion before I undertake any editing.
I remember reading about this somewhere...
The OSI site says:
and Eric Raymond wrote on http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html:
I suggest we follow that guideline, but you have to be careful since it often looks like an adjective, but isn't: Open Source Definition, Open Source Initiative -- both lack a hyphen. It's clearer when you think of OSD as "Definition of (Open Source)" rather than the incorrect "Definition that is open-source". In other words, you use "open-source" when it is a property and "Open Source" when referring to the object.
Daniel Quinlan 22:32 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In this case, I think it hardly makes any difference, and I would prefer omitting the hyphen in keeping with the more common usage. There is no ambiguity in open source software, since no parsing other than (open source) software makes sense. I like hyphens as much as the next guy, but only when they actually make sense. -- Delirium 10:32, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
Recently, I editted the page to indent subsections so that they would be more noticably subsections so as not to confuse people as to whether they were subsections or sections. This way, running through the list would be less confusing and easier on the eyes. However, it was changed by someone recently, and is back to being unindented. Could we please return it to being indented? It would make it much easier on the readers that way. -- LGagnon
I think this page is starting to get out of hand, we ought to come up with some sort of criteria for inclusion. -- Imran 13:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The main way to distinguish between open source and non open source sortware is the licence, often the OSI approved licences used to distinguish ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ ), as such I propose this list includes the software licence in brackets next to the entry. We could also consides a vers short discription and possibly the platforms it runs on. Only well known significant or mature projects should be mentioned, ie tail for windows does not meet these criteria, Mitch Kapors Chandler should be there as it is significant. If there is not some sort of elagibility criteria we may as well just start listing every project on sourceforge and freshmeat. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the above criteria. Here are apps which don't meet the above criteria that have been removed multiple times:
-- Karnesky 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
why would you clutter up an encyclopedia with this? there are innumerables. just dump freshmeat.net into your encyclopedia.
The categories need to be worked on, the internet one is fairly meaningless at least half the software mentioned could be considered internet soptware in some way. There should probably also be a division between client and server. There is also a lack of server software eg plenty of FTP clients but no proFTP. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I really agree on this, it's very random. I can't find WordPress etc. - Anna
Would it be a good idea to identify what open source license each program has? - Anthropic42 13:04, 13 April 2004 (UTC)
I think thats a very good idea (for someone with a lot of time on their hands) Htaccess 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of including the license--this is just a list. It is already to unwieldy with off-site links & descriptions of some programs. Many other software lists are just that--lists containing nothing more than links to the relevant Wikipedia article. -- Karnesky 00:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see a linked page about open-source equivalents of closed source software.
Can I add Syllable to the list? At version 0.5.5, it's not exactly totally mature yet, but it's useable and substantial. Graue 19:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the remark about QCad that "newer versions are no longer open-source"? The website linked in the QCad article indicates that the source code is under the GPL. Graue 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why are there two math sections?
Any objections to removing site links for any software that has a Wikipedia page & adding site links for those that don't have Wikipedia pages? Karnesky 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This is getting goofy. I'm converting all of this into categories. If you object, please tell me on my talk page and we can talk it over here. Wh e re (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that there isn't an article with a list of freeware (not open-source, but still free). I only see a link to a list at Wikibooks (which is fairly good). But if there is a list of open source software packages here at Wikipedia, shouldn't there be a list of freeware applications (not just games) here as well, not just at Wikibooks? -- FlyingPenguins 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I added the cleanup tag, as linking in headings is a "negative" in the MOS!
I'll get round to it eventually, unless someone else does first...
EvocativeIntrigue 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that this list has alot of links to 'Free X sofware'. Should those be listed if we're specifically discussing OSS?
I would suggest that, for the general public, the difference between free and OSS isn't great. Additionally, it seems like our lists are heavily mixed. May I suggest we make instead of this page a List of free software (which already redirects here) and then tag all the OSS packages. Oberiko 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. However, if free in this context is not the same as open source, then I do not think that list of free software packages should redirect to list of open source software packages. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
List of open source software packages →
List of free software packages – This page includes and points to many non-OS free packages already, plus it will standardize with them
Oberiko 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
I do still spend some time cleaning up this list & have noticed others spend time to. Through this continual cleanup, we've kicked out any pages which have too many ads or which are new/non-notable from the "External links" section. Because of this maintenance, I'd appreciate either removing the cleanup template (which seems to have been applied to MANY pages recently). If anyone objects to removing it now, I'd encourage them to cleanup the list as they see fit & then removing it. -- Karnesky 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I submit to your decision the inclusion of Openbravo in the finance category of this list. Full disclosure for the purpose of WP:NPOV: I am an Openbravo employee. Jmitja ( talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no concensus after 34 days
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
List of free and open source software packages →
List of free and open-source software packages — Multimove combined from 19 20 different talk pages; relisted for further input.
Jafeluv (
talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
like Open-source software — Neustradamus ( ✉) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments copied from Talk:Free and open source software |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
After more than 20 days of discussion there appears to be two clear positions here. The support for the move appears to be relying on an English grammatical rule stating that the adjectival form of "open-source" should be hyphenated. This stance is supported by the manual of style in
WP:HYPHEN, and it appears to be the manner which it is used in literature about the subject when they use the adjectival form. Opposition is relying on the guidelines at
use common name, saying that the term is most commonly not hyphenated. The opposition also points out that this conversation has occurred in that past, and we are not using the hyphenated form.
—
V = I * R (
Talk •
Contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
List of free software web applications has just been restructured to remove all non-notable apps and standardise the format. Maybe something similar could be done here? Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Below is my proposed new structure:
Package | Field | Built-on | Platform | License | Latest Version | Latest Release Date | Note |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCC | Compiler | C | cross-platform | GPL | 4.6.1 | June 27, 2011 | Includes C, C++, Objective-C, Ada, Java, Pascal and Fortran compilers |
Who removed my addition redarding IRC servers??? That was good information 70.26.22.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Attention other editors: I have discovered this tedhickey person is a vandal, and has been quitely removing stuff from this page. I don't know for how long as I did not check, but he has remove for example http://bots.sourceforge.net/en/index.shtml from the communication section. This is a perfectly good addition, like mine. This person should be banned immediately and the damage corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.247.141 ( talk) 11:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Where should we include cloud systems such as ownCloud, seafil etc? Wakeup12 ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to add a category for Geoscience in the Science section. The Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics (CIG) has a whole bunch of open source software packages in geosciences that help with modelling, etc of seismology, tectonics, volcanoes, sea-floor spreading.....I am also thinking of creating articles for the software, but thought I should start here first and ask if I can create a section where they can live. ScienceJen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceJen ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"This article need a review due incorrect licensing informations and missing informations that the listed program is only a demo". This may have been intended to supplement the {{ misleading}} tag. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Vitrite (software). The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Vitrite (software) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
As many others have said before this list is quite a mess and does not provide enough information to be useful when 'Category' article listings are more complete. I suggest turning it into a table with each row contatining the name of the software along with its license, brief description clearly stating its purpose and discerning features, developer and whether it's a fork or not. Such table could act as a quick reference of free software to anyone interested in a particular category without the need to open each article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmaslo ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Fyi. Might be valuable to relate or point out that it exists, https://joss.theoj.org/ KR 17387349L8764 ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)