Talk:ChibiOS/RT

About the missing references and sources claim

To user Ghettoblaster: The article refers to a FOSS project, and is similar to many other articles referring similar projects. The required references and sources are the project activity and the source code itself. Any claim in the article is verifiable. The references you are asking for are the link at the bottom of the page. If you don't have some reason to believe than any claim in the article is unverifiable or false I am going to revert your last change. N'SallaNuto (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay cool and assume good faith. Threatening to revert my edits does not help. I added this tag because this article does not cite any reliable sources yet. Due to the lack of direct verifiability it might be considered original research. Without any third party references other readers might also wonder about notability of the subject. So if you know more about this OS, please understand this request as a chance to improve this article. Thanks for all your contributions! Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool and assuming good faith, note that I didn't just edit the tag but asked your reasons. You are asking "reliable sources" but about what? the project does exists, it has an active users base, the claims into the article are verifiable in both the source code and the documentation, it is not less notable than any other free RTOS listed and it is an active project. Being a FOSS product it is unlikely you will find a third party "certifying" it, it is a "published work" by itself, and this is true for all the others listed RTOS and not just this one, or at least I am missing such reliable references in the other articles. N'SallaNuto (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (third party) sources are needed for example when the article claims that this is a "fast" RTOS. It's not surprising that the authors claim this on the project page (who likes to admit that he wrote software with bad performance?), so claims like this should always have independent sources. You can't expect the reader to download, test and compare it to see if this is true or not. I'm in no case suggesting that this article should be deleted. However, I experienced that not every free software project with only a few users is accepted here, so it does not hurt to include some more independent sources wherever applicable. If this is indeed a notable, compact and fast open source RTOS with an active users base, it should be possible to find a third party "certifying" it. Professional journals, magazines, news sites, etc. do cover other open source projects all the time. And just because other RTOS articles on Wikipedia also don't have proper references (yet), this does not mean that we don't need them at all. Instead we should try to improve them as well and inform other editors to do the same. Thank you for your understanding. Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, about "compact and fast", the project declares the kernel performance data, as example context switch time and other metrics, other similar products do not do that and even disallow benchmarking in their license terms. If you find that point non encyclopedic I see no problems in changing it with another introduction to the article. N'SallaNuto (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out, I could not find many references to this project. The reference that I found seems to support the claim "compact and fast RTOS". However, I don't know how this company is related to this project and whether this is a reliable source. Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean gpl3.palamida.com:8080 ? I believe it is a GPL3 projects tracker but it is not related to any project. They monitor the GPL3 adoption and the conversions from GPL2 to GPL3. Their main page contains statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N'SallaNuto (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was talking about this reference. Maybe this isn't a very good source to support the claim if they just copied the ChibiOS/RT description from Wikipedia or the project page. I'm not sure. Perhaps we'll find a better reference later. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STM32 families

Has the STM32 F2 or W series been tested with ChibiOS/RT? I assume they should work since they are closely related to other series. See the new STM32 article that I created. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ChibiOS/RT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]