Jump to content

Talk:Cisco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

More talk

Another source says, "To begin with, Cisco was a garage company run by a married couple. They sold their shares at a relatively early stage, and missed out on billions, although they are still massively well off."

Storing the above here, pending verification by GayCommunist who is probably right for all I know. --Ed Poor

The story is factual as far as I know. I read about it in Newsweek somewhere, and at one point saw a TV documentary about the company. The couple began making simple WAN routers for university campuses (they were among the first to come up with the idea), and expanded very rapidly. There is a hillarious video tape of them making a sales pitch in their garage, when an earthquake hits. They were forced out of the administration once the company got really large, and sold their shares in disgust. The company continued to grow, so it turns out they lost billions (I think they were left with about one billion dollars). The wife runs a chain of floral shops today. User:GayCommunist

Here's some backing: [1]

Thanks, here's a key excerpt:

Sandra Lerner ... With Leonard Bosack, she founded Cisco Systems (1996 revenues: $5.4 billion), one of Silicon Valley's biggest success stories. They created the first commercially successful router, a device that enables once-incompatible computers in far-off computer networks to communicate. In 1990 they walked away with $170 million after being booted by the professional managers the firm's venture capitalists brought in. [2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 August 2002 (UTC)

This should be cleaned up, as well as certain other aspects that blaxthos mentions :) the--dud 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

looks like someone came in and removed most of the redlinks. I still raise my call for a rewrite. I'd like discuss before complete removal of the rewrite tag... and again, I offer my services if anyone wants to partner with me on the rewrite. /Blaxthos 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for Rewrite

I'd like to call for a rewrite of this article... it's light on information, and without being too critical, the diction and grammar syntax don't read easily or convey meaningful content. I'd be happy to partner with someone to rewrite the information, and to provide more detailed insight into what cisco does, etc. ~blaxthos


I just expanded the introduction and cleaned it up a little bit. I'd be glad to collaborate on a rewrite if you are still interested.-Ryan0 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If a rewrite is in the works, I'd like to suggest reconfiguring the redirect on the cisco page to link with the disambiguation for cisco rather than taking one to the Cisco systems entry. Cisco Systems is a brand name while other usages (particularly biological uses) are at least a few centuries old and no less than deserve parity with a commercial trademark. Peter3 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I haven't had time to work on a draft. I hesitate to say "go for it" regarding the redirection... I have not (yet) looked at policy, but my common sense tells me that we should go with whatever term is most likely to suit the largest number of people -- is it more likely that someone typing 'cisco' to find something about networking hardware, or a fish (or whatever else it might be used for). I do not know the answer, but I think we should try to find out before making the change. Just my $0.02. /Blaxthos 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I held off on the disambiguation because I couldn't find clear guidance in policy and guidelines. A rather unpleasant debate took place around naming conventions related to the use of "Great Lakes" that I felt ended in a decision that undermines the proper role of an encyclopedia to offer complete and informative articles on the actual meaning of terms that may mean more than what a person assumes.

I guess I don't know what most people would equate with the word cisco. In an on-line environment that is probably the company. In the wider world I suspect the fish (which is consumed by a lot of folks) would be more widely recognised. Since the actual company name is Cisco Systems (or Cisco Systems Inc.), I suggest that a query for the full company name should go to the company's entry and a query on "cisco" should go to a disambiguation. If I don't hear any objections I'll make the change, otherwise I'll leave it for the time being. Peter3 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cisco the company has an undoubtedly larger presence on the Internet; a Google search for cisco +router turns up over four times as many pages as cisco +fish (both turn up quite a few results). The entire first page (10) of results for Cisco are about the company. I'm not saying this alone justifies the current redirection, but in general my suspicion is that most people looking for "cisco" on Wikipedia are looking for the company. For a similar situation, see Intel. It currently redirects to Intel Corporation, with a link to the Intel (disambiguation) page. — Aluvus t/c 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I will also object to changing the cisco redirect to a disambig page. Reasons listed above. /Blaxthos 04:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No surprise. The present configuration is undoubtedly consistent with the existing Wikipedia community's cultural biases. I would note, however, that the only uses of intel on the disambiguation page referred to by Aluvus that are not references to the company or its products are a slang contraction of the word intelligence (not a word in its own right), and a fictional entity from a television miniseries. As such, they have more in common with the use of a corporate name fragment (derived from two syllables of a four syllable place name) than with the use of a proper centuries-old word, however lightly used by the technologically literate community that still dominates internet use. Anyway, no big deal.Peter3 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Titling

It's usually not to bother with the "Inc." etc when the common company name alone is unambiguous, so I moved it. Stan 19:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I vote against this, and for an article named like the registered corporation. - Jerryseinfeld 20:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's almost never done though - take a look at Category:Fortune 500 companies, Category:Manufacturing companies of the United States, or just about anything under Category:Companies (the categories show actual article names, unlike lists which may be piped). Stan 05:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

merge

I am merging from Cisco Systems acquisitions as that seems like a too-narrow topic. DDerby 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you cancelled this merge. It seems like a good idea. That said, the list of companies bought by Cisco is highly out of date, and anyway Cisco itself provides the canonical list of acquisitions on its web site... so why bother? mjlodge 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - to your first question - the acquistion page is already much too long to fit nicely on the main page and will likely grow longer. One possibility is to add a mini version of it to the main page, but it is usually bad to duplicate information. As to your second question, we need a wikipedia page of the acquisitions so that the stories of these companies and their technolgies will be linked properly. There are already reasonable wikipedia pages for the acquired companies StrataCom and Telebit, with more to come. Brholden 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A mention of the most notable acquisitions in the history section might be appropriate. But this isn't my article. DDerby 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

internal merge

I'd like to merge the two competing partial product lists on this page, but am not geek enough to know the hardware. Could someone qualified do this? DDerby 04:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DeNuccio

The comment "According to Vice President Denuccio the company sees itself as the "plumbers of the internet"" is very out of date and should be removed. DeNuccio left Cisco five years ago, and Cisco sees its role as much wider than simply providing plumbing.--Rollier 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


The DeNuccio comment has been replaced with the follow text, which more accurately reflects Cisco's current position: "Cisco's vision is "Changing the Way We Live, Work, Play and Learn." Cisco's current tagline is "Welcome to the human network."" --Ryan0 02:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting the "new logo" change until it is verified... I can't find anything on cisco.com about it, and the only stuff i can find on the web about it all traces back to theinquirer.com (reliable?). /Blaxthos 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that its not a hoax. But other than leaked/rumor sites, it's unverifiable at the moment. Regardless, its not the official logo as can be seen as the www.cisco.com site, so the logo doesnt belong on wiki till that changes.Dman727 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I was at Fry's today in San Jose and saw someone sporting the new Cisco logo on his t-shirt. I think Cisco has just started to phase this in.

The new logo's going back up. They have a banner with it hanging from the one of their buildings on Tasman and Zanker; that's pretty official. I'm sure a press release is coming soon. Or it's a really complex hoax with fake shirts and some crazy idiots putting up a banner... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.143.197 (talk)

Reverting... until there is a press release, or a verifiable source (other than an unsigned talk comment by an anonymous IP), it should remain the official logo. /Blaxthos 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Its on the corporate website now [3] Thats pretty official. Also theres a bit of a puffery about the makeover with a blub about the logo [4] Dman727 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Criticisms Section

The link to the internet censorship article was not, in my opinion, sufficient information about the issue. I kept a link to the main article but added a summary of the issue so interested readers can determine if they want to follow the link to the main article. Additionally, the class action lawsuit is a noteworthy news item, even though Cisco denied all wrongdoing. If you decide to remove the criticisms section I would appreciate an explanation of why you decide to do so on the discussion page. Thanks! --Rcragun 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current lawsuit is more noteworthy than the 7 year old monopoly article. 7 years is a LONG LONG time in networking is almost not really relevant anymore. Juniper has come along way and taken a fair share of the core routing market away from cisco.Dman727 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
apology for my outdated knowledge. --Voidvector 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The same capability in a router that in theory allows the Chinese to censor its population also allows corporations to prioritize important information flowing across its network, impede the spread of viruses, and prevent security leaks. As stated in the article, Cisco doesn't add or limit these features for governments -- it sells the products as is.

No justification for this article

As Sam Blanning (Samuel Blanning) has said, Wikipedia is not the place to learn about corporations. He has said it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by John hyams (talk • contribs) 09:50, November 10, 2006

The point he was making is that corporations are not inherently notable, not that all corporations should be removed from Wikipedia. — Aluvus t/c 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(moving new topic to bottom) pardon me saying so, but that's nuts. Anything in the world - corporation, newspaper, school, rock, insect or rumour - that affects as many people as strongly as Cisco does deserves a wikipedia article. --Alvestrand 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Cisco was at one point in the last 5 years, the most valuable corporation on Earth. Not just telecom, but more valuable than any other company in history. Its dropped in value quite a bit as did the fortunes of many dot coms , but is still the 17th most valuable brand, ahead of BMW, Pepsi, Sony and many others[[5]]. In short, its a pretty durn noteable entity. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about it, you can submit it for articles for deletion, although I suspect it would be closed via WP:SNOW Dman727 02:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree, tell that to Sam Blanning who deleted the article about RAD Data Communications. That was a totally unfair and thug behaviour on his part.—comment added by John Hyams(t/c)

So you're trying to make a WP:POINT on a totally unrelated page, using flawed logic? Do you live under a bridge? /Blaxthos 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAD Data Communications, Wikipedia:Deletion review/RAD Data Communications. Just for info. --Alvestrand 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see (above) my dear Belaxthos, I've stated my point already on the relevent "Deletion Review" pages (and others), but to no avail. I did mention Cisco here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_hyams, as RAD is a notable data communications hardware manufacturer, just like Cisco (where are their "competitors"?). RAD perhaps is less known in the United States, but still, similar to Cisco. So please, no need for offending "Live under Bridge" statements, and don't bother to reply, since the bereaucracy and duplicity on this site makes me want to just give up my well-intended efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John hyams (talk • contribs)

Arguing that this article should be deleted because another article that should not have been deleted was deleted is a bit backwards and isnt productive. Your should be arguing, on Rad page, that Rad should stay because other companies like Cisco stay. Not that I think its a valid comparison. Kinda like saying that Bill's Auto Garage should have a page because Toyota has one. FWIW, I am familiar with Rad and have used their producs in the past and it should proably have a page...but THIS page isn't the place for that discussion.Dman727 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing leading to confusion

I can't tell whether the sentence

While Cisco was the first company to develop and sell a router (a device that forwards computer traffic from one network to another), it did create the first commercially successful multi-protocol router to allow previously incompatible computers to communicate using different network protocols.

either seems to be missing a "not" (not the first company to develop and sell a router) or it is simply badly written. Its quite a big difference in meaning Talltim 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two different kinds of routers (i.e. internetwork-layer switches): single-protocol (i.e. understand only one internetwork-level protocol, such as IP), and multi-protocol (such as both IP and XNS). The sentence (with the missing "not" added, as you correctly point out) is saying that Cisco was not the first to produce a single-protocol router, but were the first to produce a multi-protocol router.
Alas, the second claim is incorrect too! Cisco shipped their first routers in May '86 (source: Cisco marketing document entitled "Company Backgrounder", March 1988, pg. 3), whereas Proteon shipped their first volume shipments of their p4200 multi-protocol router in January '86. I'll fix to say "one of the first". Noel (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link for the Proteon router? I'd like to read up on that. BTW, its curious that Cisco made its bones on the multi-protocol router (first or not), but the multi-protocol router seems to be destined to being an historical anomaly as the vast majority of routers today only route IP. Dman727 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Alas, no. The company went bankrupt and was sold to another company, which doesn't manufacture that product line any more. There's plenty of archival documentation which discusses them, e.g. this Internet Monthly Report from April, 1986. (And yes, as one of the inventors of the multi-protocol router - Bill Yeager of Stanford being the other independent co-inventor - I definitely appreciate the irony that multi-protocol routers, once the dominant variety, are now destined for the ash-heap of history.) Noel (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

iPhone

Cisco is sueing Apple, because they claim to have had the trademarked name "iPhone" since 2000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Partapdua1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the "iPhone Lawsuit" section. While it's an important event, the copy was stolen verbatim from a USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-02-21-cisco-apple-iphone_x.htm?csp=34).Anthony71 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

That Wikipedia made an appearence in one of their commercials (a background computer has wikipedia on it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it was a 7 year old girl editing the Cisco page. The background said "...And books will rewrite themselves...". What's funny is that a VERY small percentage of WP's infrastructure is Cisco, if I understand correctly. --BezkingTalk • Contribs 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Section

I get the gist of what was written there, although it needs to be worded a bit more elegantly. However of more concern is that the reference is written in Spanish. Surely if its notable, there an English reference to support this? I would rewrite the section, except its rather difficult to write based on an unreadable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry. thats not spanish, its portuguese (Brazil), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.28.13.198 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So there were three references here. Two of those references were to non english language articles that the english reader cannot use. The other reference (CNN) doesn't corroborate that anyone from Cisco was arrested. Essentially this section is not supported by the facts presented in these references. This section also doesn't use the word "alleged" at all. No court has found anyone guilty of any crime. Brian Ford 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok. those guys were taken arrest at the Federal Police... near my home. do whatever you want.... Neither Cisco USA knows what the hell is happening here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.28.13.198 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hacking info censored away?

Three years ago a 16 year old swede hacker broke into Cisco corporate networks, stole the entire IOS source code and dumped it on the open web. Why this notable and rather humuliating event is missing from this article? This is worst censorship for the sake of mere corporate asslicking! [6] 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the article! If you feel it should be there then by all means put it in. I don't think its been "censored" away, but rather no one has taken the time to write a passage on it.Dman727 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---Seems like a very noteworthy case of industrial espionage. I could of course Google it, but if someone knows the details, I think it should be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like advertisement

Cisco improves the way we all live, work, play and learn. Cisco enables people to make powerful connections-whether in business, education, philanthropy, or creativity. Cisco hardware, software, and service offerings are used to create the Internet solutions that make networks and communications possible-providing easy access to information anywhere, at any time

At the top sounds purely like company advertising. suggest it is deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.163.53 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 

    Agreed. Fragment deleted. Ftpaddict (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on Environmental Record sounds like an advertisement as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.10.50 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cisco bought flip

http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090319/flip-flips-to-cisco-for-590-million-in-stock/ Mathiastck (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"valuable company"

"In January 2009, with a market cap of about US$93 billion, it is still one of the most valuable companies.[5]"

But the citation is an article from 2006, so how can it be supporting a claim regarding 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.44.19 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its support is significantly reduced, but does provide some support. 3 years isn't exactly an eternity. Factually, the company is still one of the most valuable companies and a better cite should be found, but that doesn't make the aged cite inaccurate. Dman727 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kalpana

I'm slightly disappointed that there's no mention of the Kalpana acquisition in 1994[1]. It was after all Kalpana that pioneered the multi-port bridge (switch) and EtherChannel which are one of Cisco key markets today. Sigurbjartur Helgason (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cisco has done dozens of significant acquistions. No interest in listing them all here. Hblackhawks (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Prenigmamann

References

  1. ^ http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/1994/corp_102494.html

Open Clients

I was pointed at this page because it contained some inaccurate information about the open AnyConnect client, which (as the author of said client) I have now corrected. I've also provided a reference to that client, since there was a 'citation needed' tag. I don't really see why VPN clients (open clients or Cisco's own) require an explicit mention on this page though. Surely it should suffice to mention that Cisco's product range includes VPN stuff? The whole article could probably be a lot smaller. But if it is deemed acceptable as it is, then the IPSec VPN section should probably mention vpnc, too? Dwmw2 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are the VPN clients called out separately in the software section anyway? It seems odd that that these two clients would be called out given the large list of Cisco software listed.ManosFate (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cisco Certifications?

Why arn't the Cisco Career Certifications mentioned in this article? Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

65.535 employees...

Is this figure in the infobox reliable? Any "geek" should find this at best funny, at least awkward... Source please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.155.11 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's cute. I hadn't noticed it- I've removed it. tedder (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

fired?

"In 1990, the company was listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Lerner was fired; as a result Bosack quit after receiving $200 million. Most of those profits were given to charities and the two later divorced." - Is the article stating that Lerner was fired because the company was listed on the exchange? Or simply both happened in the same year? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This change removed entire sections on Cisco VPN Clients. It would be great if at least some of the information on the Open Cisco VPN Client could be resurrected, since that is clearly not "advertising". The VPN Template still links to the now missing section. --Drizzd (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at the main one. -Avindra talk / contribs 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Flip "citation needed"?

Why is there a "citation needed" for the fact that the Flip is a Cisco product? I'm completely baffled by that tag's presence. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobile

http://www.cisco.com/web/mobile/index.html WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates format in article

There seems to be some concern over the date formatting in this article recently. I wanted to note some article facts from my content search and then we can discuss what the WP:MOSDATE policy recommends from here. I may be off by a few percent, but I believe it is accurate enough for the purpose of this discussion. Anyone is welcome to double check my numbers and correct any errors they see.

Date formats in Cisco Systems
Format Main
article		 Footnotes
YYYY-MM-DD 0 131
Month DD, YYYY
Month YYYY
DD Month YYYY
Total w/Month 		11
6
1
18		 28
5
6
39

From here we see there is clearly a mixture of date formats.

  • The first full date added to the article was one on October 30, 2006. It also included a footnote. The date format of that body copy and footnote entry were both Month, DD, YYYY. Before this entry there were a number of Month YYYY entries as well.
  • On January 25, 2007, a user took the external reference links already present and entered them into the article as references and used the YYYY-MM-DD format.

I will now switch to comments based on my opinion.

  1. The way I read WP:DATERET "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic." I suppose we can argue if the first person to add the full date in Oct 2006 was a major contributor or not, but the first full date in the article for both the body and footnote used Month DD, YYYY.
  2. Based on those facts I believe the article started with Month DD, YYY and should retain that format.

§ Music Sorter § (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of American Internet

American Internet doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. However, information in the article would have some use in this article. Therefore, I would like to propose that the article be merged here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have merged to Cisco Network Registrar. That seemed like a more appropriate destination based on the contents of the source article. --Kvng (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

some history about bridges

It's late and i am tired so some ideas and info for others to research and then add to the main article. I am writing this from memory and this stuff is 20 yrs old or more so it needs checking and cannot be used as is. The original logo used to be a red bridge like the bridge in san fransisco. The logos used to be everywhere. Their current logo is still based on a bridge. Bridge is a network term for joining two networks and the first networking device that made cisco famous was a bridge. networks used to be joined with hubs but they get too busy if you do that. Bridges join networks but learn addresses for both sides of the bridge (mac address) When lots of bridges are shoved into a single box you get a switch and almost nobody uses hubs nowadays. When i was a student at university they used cisco bridges on the long corridors instead of packet relay devices because the bridges were cheap, and the campus was too large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottonsocks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Founding date

The opening sentence reads "Cisco Systems was founded in December 1924 ..." really? Leonard Bosack wasn't even born then ... Guess it needs editing then? Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.216.113 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Coverup of evading sanctions

http://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/after-sanctions-cisco-altered-sales-records-in-russia

Notable enough for this article? Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to be GOP BLP, which I'm opt outed of. Hcobb (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cisco Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cisco Systems. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cisco Systems. 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) 05:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dynamicsoft

Subject of article proposed to be merged into Cisco Systems is not notable on it's own. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Duo Security

Duo Security should be listed in the acquisition section. Cisco completed the acquisition in October 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.245.194 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Granite Systems

It seems that Cisco bought Granite Systems some time ago. I thought that it should link here, but if there is no mention here, maybe not. Gah4 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cisco/Archive_1&oldid=1193858985"