Talk:Black Lab Linux

Notable

As is, the page is not notable. It may be notable if someone could provide the story about how Yellow Dog Linux and Terra Soft Solutions evolved out of Black Lab Linux, especially if there was controversy involved, Cuvtixo 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page hasn't been notable in its more-than-six years! Due to the nature of the subject matter, it has apparently no hope of becoming so, and it needs to be folded into a real article. I just majorly cleaned up this perma-stub, for the day when someone does that. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not notable. This distro doesn't even appear in Distrowatch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.130.75 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

This edit needlessly reignites the GNU/Linux naming controversy, and removes the stub tag. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{request edit}} Black Lab Linux is now owned, distributed and developed by PC/OpenSystems LLC. Being as though we are now the copyright owners of Black Lab Linux we would like for ldavidson121975 edit to be reverted back and that be used. We contacted Mr. Axl Matulic today regarding this and he said that whoever told me to start a new article was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertojdohnert (talk • contribs) 00:04, March 19, 2014‎

Please sign your talk page edits with 4 tildes.

I undid the edits, as can easily be seen from the edit history. I don't know who Axl Matulic is or why you would think he would be able to make such a decision without discussing the issue with the editor who raised the issue. You didn't raise the issue on the talk page as I suggested, or on my talk page, and neither did whichever editor Axl Matulic is.

As I said on the first editor's talk page here "The problem is that you are trying to rewrite the article to cover a different subject. Black Lab Linux is about the specific 1999 distribution, not any other distribution that happens to have the same name." After a username change the edit was reinserted and I replied here "Just because your company has now made a distribution with the same name is no reason to shoehorn your information into the original article. Create a new article if the new distrubution is notable, and create a disambiguation page if necessary." I then suggested that you take it up on the talk page if you disagreed, but you did not. I see that you did ask a question on the second user's talk page here about how to link your new article to the original. Sorry I missed it, but it was 25 days after I left my message and I don't monitor other people's talk pages for replies to my posts for that long.

Why don't I think this material belongs? The first editor said "My company last year acquired the rights to the name Black Lab Linux which was used back in 1999 for a PowerPC based Linux distro." The desired changes to the article include "Black Lab Linux in its current incarnation does not have any relationship with Terrasoft Solutions release of Black Lab Linux." So, it still sounds to me as if your Black Lab Linux has nothing to do with the topic of the original article, other than happening to share the same distribution name. I could be wrong. If so, please explain it to me, as I've already suggested. Until you do, this is content dispute, not a question of a conflict of interest edit. I appreciate that you are following Wikipedia's procedures by changing your original commercial username to a personal one, and by asking for a conflict of interst edit (and I don't object to the edit on COI grounds).

I still think that the best solution is a separate article for you distribution with a disambiguation. If the other Black Lab Linux is no longer active/supported I would support renaming the old distribution's article and giving your distribution the Black Lab Linux article title (with a link to the old article's new title). Perhaps the original article could even be deleted. If your new article is not accepted I don't see a problem clarifying the original article to distinguish between the article topic and your Black Lab Linux, but not with the amount of detail you are trying to have added about your distribution. If the article isn't about your distribution, there's no need to specify the four distinct variants of your distribution, for example. Meters (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... I am the "Axl Matulic" he has been communicating with, on OTRS.

I made no decision, I simply expressed my opinion that you were mistaken. The thrust of my advice was to engage you on the talk page to come to an agreement, and I am gratified to see that is happening, but did not expect to see my name bandied about as an authoritative decision-maker.

Involving myself in discussion here puts me in a difficult position because OTRS typically does not resolve content disputes. Nevertheless, now that I've been pulled in....

It seems inappropriate to fork off another article about essentially the same subject, since the product, intellectual property, etc. has now changed ownership. That would be an unnecessary WP:FORK and likely merged back into this article. The history of ownership should be an integral part of this article, should it not? I suggest a modification of the article that retains a description of the original product with a mention that ownership has been transferred. I fail to see how doing so will reduce the quality of the article rather than improve it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

so if I make this change, will it be allowed to take affect rather than being reverted back? Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends what the change is. If it's what you propose below, as an addition rather than a replacement, I don't see any problem with it, but I would like Meters to weigh in.

If you have a conflict of interest, it is best that you don't make the change yourself, but wait until others agree. The change will either be made for you, or you will be asked to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See below. If it can be stated that the rights to the Black Lab Linux name have been aquired by the new company then a rewrite about the new distribution with a bit of history shoud work. Sorry if I misunderstood the name ownership issue. Meters (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article

The new article was refused because of an article with a like name. This one. Several editors have said to update this article and not start a new one. So my question is this and I will let Roberto know. What information is needed to get this article edited and updated to include the current incarnation of Black Lab Linux. Terrasoft Solutions does not exist anymore so the PowerPC release is no longer developed or distributed. Ldavidson121975 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem with articles having similar names. The reason given was "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Black Lab Linux)" not because it had a similar name. I can't tell why this reason was used without seeing the now deleted article, but if you just copied the original article over with your additions rather than creating an article about your release it would explain it. If that's wasn't the problem I suggest you contact the users who reviewed and deleted the proposed new article. It may have been a mistake. Meters (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope it was a brand new article with none of the original material from this article and the reason given BY the editor was because this article existed. Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why they would have deleted the article on that basis if the original material was gone, but the reason given in the deletion notice was as I quoted, not because the article existed. Here it is in full:

23:33, March 18, 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Lab Linux (PC/OpenSystems LLC) (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Black Lab Linux)

As I said, take it up with the admin. Meters (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes proposed

{{request edit}} These are the changes I propose to make and would like to know if this will be allowed to take effect.

In 2013, PC/OpenSystems LLC released a distribution named Black Lab Linux after a dispute with the USPTO Black Lab Linux in its current incarnation does not have any relationship with Terrasoft Solutions release of Black Lab Linux. PC/OpenSystems LLC's release of Black Lab Linux is based on Ubuntu Linux.

References

External links

• GNU/Linux on Power Mac site
• [1]
• PC OpenSystems LLC
• Black Lab Linux Website
• LWN.net
• Linux.com

Ldavidson121975 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this being proposed as an addition or a replacement? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the addition, and that's part of the problem. By leaving the rest of the article as is, and then adding a section emphasizing that there is no connection between the new release and the original release it sounds like this does not belong in the same article. If they have the rights to the orignal name, then the article needs to be completely rewritten to show the history of the named distributions. You cna't have it both ways. If thats the way it goes then the old release becomes just an item in the history section of the rewritten article. I'm fine with that, particularly because the old release does not seem particularly notable anyways. Meters (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, PC/OpenSystems LLC purchased not only the name, but all of the intellectual property. The revision above does not state that PC/OpenSystems LLC has no connection whatsoever to the original Black Labs Linux. It's impossible to have no connection because they own it now. What the revision seems to emphasize above is that their recent release is an independent re-write of the original product. As such, the proposal above is confusing and should be re-worded to clarify that the company has a relationship with both products, but both products have no relation to each other except in name. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Can the other editors provide sources to show that? I'm not likely going to be able to find them on my own. Meters (talk)

Ok then, what we will do is go ahead and rewrite the article with the new information and we will propose it here. What happened when we had acquired Black Lab Linux was that Terrasoft had already sold its main product, Yellowdog Linux and Yellowdog HPC to Fixstars, we acquired the rest of it. It wasnt made public at the time Robertojdohnert (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Replacement proposed

{{request edit}} This is a rewrite of the article that we would like to see published. A REPLACEMENT, not an addition to.

Black Lab Linux is a free software, open-source Linux distribution for x86 and x86_64 hardware. It was first released in November 2013 by PC/OpenSystems LLC. Black Lab Linux is based on Ubuntu Linux tailored both for general desktop use and for the more technical user and it is also commercially made available by PC/OpenSystems LLC for business desktops, education facilities as well as high-performance, parallel computing. It is one of the few Linux distributions that uses the XFCE desktop as its primary desktop environment.

Formerly known as OS/4, Roberto J. Dohnert and the Black Lab Linux team decided to change the name to Black Lab Linux after the USPTO denied his trademark application for OS/4. PC/OpenSystems LLC had acquired the rights to the Black Lab Linux name after Fixstars acquired Terrasoft Solutions and Yellowdog Linux.

Black Lab Linux as of this writing is at release 4.2 with release 5.0 coming May 5, 2014. PC/OpenSystems LLC also provides pre-installed hardware with Black Lab Linux.

See also

• List of Linux distributions

References

External links

• Black Lab Linux Website
• LWN.net Linux Distributions
• Linux.com
• PC OpenSystems LLC
• Patent Trolls kill OS/4 OpenLinux

Robertojdohnert (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitting replacement articles defeats the purpose of the conflict of interest guideline. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

comment on proposed edits

A few minor tweaks that can be done after the article is moved, such as removing external links that are already used as refs. A larger concern is that there is no mention of the earlier Black Lab Linux. There should be some mention of the original, particularly since user:Amatulic mentioned that you obtained the name and the property rights to the original Black Lab Linux, even if yours now has a completley different code base. Otherwise we have an article which used to be about the Terra Soft Solutions version but suddenly makes no mention of it at all. If there's some connection between the two different Black Lab Linux versions then one article makes sense. If not then I'm back to my original objection, and my original suggestionof seperat articles. Meters (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

additional concerns are that there are no reliably published third party sources that show the organization meets the minimum standards for having a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a stand-alone article about an organization, it's about a product that has some convoluted organizational relationships.

This article has been standing alone for about 7 years. Proposing it for deletion at WP:AFD may be an appropriate course of action, although I'd prefer to see if this article can be improved.

On the other hand, other than this interesting coverage (already used as citation #3 above), I'm finding it difficult to find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage of this product in either of its incarnations. If notability cannot be established, then maybe it's best to merge this article into Linux distributions. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect that the original article only survived so long in its current state because it was dormant (and no-one noticed it). I'm not familiar with articles on software distributions or operating systems, but the proposed article seems to me to be lacking notability. Does the mere existence of an OS give it notability? Meters (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What I personally have a problem comprehending is this, why is it that there are Linux distributions on Wikipedia, that have less sources then we do, who use the same exact sources, the LWN listing, Distrowatch listing or Linux.com listing and they are fine. When we try to get a Wikipedia page we get blasted for it. I just think its crazy. Anyhow, if you guys want to list us under Linux distributions, thats fine with me, just transfer the proposed article to that and remove this original article and then when/if we get notable or notorious enough, we will then propose a standalone article. Robertojdohnert (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As for improving this article, its kind of impossible to do. Yellowdog Linux was the most notable distribution that lived, Black Lab Linux under Terrasoft Solutions really didnt make it to mainstream. Robertojdohnert (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We're trying to work with you to help you incorporate your material into the existing article within Wikipedia's various requirements and guidelines. I think that we had something that would (or at least might) have worked, but if you prefer to have no mention of your current Black Hat distribution until (and if) it becomes notable enough for its own article, I'm not going to argue. As for the issue of similar articles existign while yours was turned down... once again, your article was turned down because the admin thought it duplicated an existing article, not because it failed on notability grounds (although notability may have been raised as a concern later). Even if it had been turned down on notability grounds, the existence of other articles with the same issues is not an acceptable argument for the inclusion of another defficient article. read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Meters (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what I said at all, Im saying to move ours to Linux distributions and to remove this article. The problem we are having understanding is that we are using sources that OTHER distributions use on Wikipedia, and, looking at the Mint article they use a lot of promotional links. Yet when we try to do this, we get blocked. We need this article either updated or removed. If you guys want promotional sources, hey we have the media center hardware link, we have the Windows XP upgrade link. We are working very hard to get this updated and when Layla got the article deleted I e-mailed the editor that removed it, he said it was because of duplicate title, not because she copied and pasted the article Robertojdohnert (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The argument that other article exist with those sources does not help your article. It only shows that the other articles may not be notable either. Your article has to stand on its own merits.

You keep misunderstanding or misstating things. user:Blank Lab Linux was blocked for having a promotional name (a clear violation of the username policy), not for inserting promotional links in an article. The IP associated with that block was briefly blocked but has been unblocked. I'm not aware that any user was blocked for inserting promotional links in Black Lab Linux.

wrt "We need this article either updated or removed." As the article stands it probably won't survive. It was already redirected once. I restored it solely because we're trying to help save the article with your updates. If the article disappears there is no guarantee your material will be anywhere in Wikipedia. It will have to be notable enough to warrant inclusion somewhere else on its own merits, just as it does for inclusion in the existing article. The article isn't there to promote the original distribution, or your distribution. Saying that you need the article to be updated or removed has a hint of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Meters (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Then what do I need to do to get my updates put in there? This is the question that I have been asking for the last week. You guys say we arent notable enough well then tell me what I need to be notable enough because as I told Axl, Im trying to work with you guys here. Fixstars doesnt want any more association. I mean I cant do anything different then every other Linux distribution on Wikipedia has done. Robertojdohnert (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to proposed article

I went ahead and added some lines to the article for submission, as well as more sources Robertojdohnert (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Without some actual third party coverage from reliable sources, I will be nominating for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)